Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 April 15 April >

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. One (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProcessWiki[edit]

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

This site is not notable yet. Note: the article has also been deleted from the Dutch Wikipedia. --Erwin (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't trust the Dutch Wikipedia as far as I can throw it. I've seen repeated deletions over there of material that is considered notable over here, so our policies clearly don't match enough for its deletion over there to mean anything. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no coverage about this Wiki. There is this Forbes article talking generically about the concept of a process wiki. But aside from directory entries and their website, I can find no information about this Wiki. Note that the author of the article appears to have a conflict of interest as the edit history of the main page of ProcessWiki shows the same username as used for this article. Verifiability is also a concern as the article claims an establishment date of March 2000 which doesn't seem to match with the few random pages I selected showing histories no earlier than 2009, and a Global launch for May 2009. -- Whpq (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think an article about the ProcessWiki should be on Wikipedia. When is a 'thing' notable and worth mentioning in an encyclopedia? In my opinion this is the case when it is something unique, interesting and meaningful. If you take a good look on the internet you cannot find something like the ProcessWiki. So that should make it unique. What makes it interesting and meaningful? At this moment business processes and especially knowledge about best practices is only available within consulting firms. The Process Wiki is a platform for business people from all over the world to share their processes with each other and learning from each other. Quite interesting and meaningful I would say. Especially because this website is the only place on the whole internet where this is possible. Sometimes I really got the feeling the dutch are so conservative. When you really dive into the subject, you can see the Process Wiki adds a new dimension to thw world of business processes. Okay, the article could be re-written on some points, but deletion goes quite far. Also take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. The points mentioned there do not apply for the article about the ProcessWiki. --Pvanerk (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - the article has been nominated for deletion as failing to meet notability, the wikipedia definition of it. Do you have any reliable sources to establish notability? -- Whpq (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From my point of view I believe this page can be very helpful for people who learn by example (Business Process Modelling). The site is full of examples of BPM related material and is freely available to the public, quite rare in my opinion. That would be my reason to keep it, but maybe not as a full page? (related links, subpage, something like that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sblommers (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete. I don't like basing these judgemnts solely on WP:N (mainly since i disagree with it), however it fails more than just that. If it were deleted, then re-written with sufficient WP:RS- the real test of notability in my book, inot something resembling an encyclopeadic article, I'd fight tooth and nail to keep it. As it is, I'm afraid I agree with the deletion. HJ Mitchell (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry DeCaire[edit]

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

Unsourced article about unnotable illustrator Alexius08 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close nomination Nominator did not apply WP:BEFORE and failed to explain WHY the person is not notable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom. Limited/no sourcing (neither of the two links given in the article seem to work), and not really very much in the way of even unsourced assertions of notability. Tevildo (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be notable. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there does appear to be some coverage but they seem to all disappeared from the Net [1] [2] and are proving tricky to bring back from the dead (I was getting the article through the Internet Archive and then it said it was blocked) but sources like Midland Daily News and The Saginaw News have their own articles here so could be useful if we can access the content. However, it might be they aren't much use when we do find them but I'll go for weak keep until I can see them (I'm keeping on this to see what I can do). Equally the article reads like an ad/resume and needs a thorough rewrite but that shouldn't really be enough to get it deleted. (Emperor (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result was Merge to List of Star Wars characters.  Frank  |  talk  02:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagarius[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a very minor Star Wars character. I have done a search and found nothing about this character anywhere. Reyk YO! 23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Reyk YO! 23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable in the Star Wars universe, by the looks of it, so certainly not notable in the real world. No coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:N. – Toon(talk) 23:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge Delete the independent article, and move the single sentence to the article behind the Star Forge redirect. --Pstanton (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable even for fans. Make a hyperspace jump to Wookiepedia. Mandsford (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mandsford. As a dedicated SF nerd, I have never heard of this character. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Readergirlz[edit]

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

Non-notable website, written by people affiliated with the site. Contested prod, no reason given for removal. CyberGhostface (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nominator's reasoning. --Pstanton (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though it needs a major re-write and addition of more content/coverage, the article is clearly (debatably) not advertising (there's nothing that really "promotes" it, it's just rather one-sided) and the subject and its activities meet web content notability criteria by being covered by multiple independent, non-trivial published works as seen here, here, here and here. KhalfaniKhaldun 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I understand the article is spammy and needs a change in tone, but I did a Google search and checked the references when I declined the speedy deletion, and I believe notability is solid. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the site is notable with coverage in multiple reliable soruces. The spamminess is an editting issue and not overt enough for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there any reason to delete other than WP:JNN? KhalfaniKhaldun 18:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The last couple of delete opinions don't explain how the sources you've identified fail to establish notability. I would expect the closing administrator to take that into consideration when determining the outcome as this is a discussion and not a vote. Saying "not notable enough" in the face presented sources isn't really a discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs a rewrite but the sources establishing notability can't be ignored. --Jmundo 04:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable in the usual way, but clean it up, please. The references have several credible cites, including newspapers and nationally known websites. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Night (album)[edit]

All Night (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable future album that has no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Merge not possible due to lack of said ref's, redirect not possible due to the non-plausible nature of the title as a search term.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:MUSIC states that unless it's a special case, a future album shouldn't get its own article unless the track listing, release date, and cover art are all released. None are present, and on top of that, it was supposed to be released first quarter 2009, which has come and gone, so the information in the article is incorrect in addition to being unverified. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unreferenced future album whose supposed release date has already come and gone. Unverifiable speculation. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fuzzy510. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Unsourced and unverified. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Wars[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB, no reliable, third-party published sources. The only independent source is a brief review on an otherwise non-notable website. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's currently a single medium-sized review cited, but it's unlikely that it's reliable and alone it doesn't help build a credible, neutral article per WP:N. A search reveals a lot of false-positives, apparently there's a collectible card game based on the Planescape universe, there's also recent film, a book by Brian Lumley.. it did turn up on some totally unreliable MMOG sites (basically they're features-lists, no real analysis at all) and that's it. Very happy to switch and support retention if some reliable sources can be dug up (same with all video games), but these free MMOGs have exploded in number and there's no network of magazines and websites out there ready to scratch the surface. Someoneanother 02:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Someoneanother 02:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Has someone asked a Polish speaker to look into this? It seems a bit judgemental to nuke stuff for what will effectively be years or perpetuity without checking in its own language. --Kizor 06:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's a legitimate review, it's still a single, medium-length review, which falls short of WP:WEB. Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more referecnce addedSzeszej (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From yet another non-notable resource. Per WP:SOURCES, "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It fails WP:N and WP:RS. Unless a third party, reliable source does some kind of coverage on this game, it has no place on Wikipedia. - Raziel  teatime  22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can seemingly be speedy deleted per CSD G7 now. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that tag was incorrect, there have been more than 1 major editors on this article. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can being hosted by a notable portal such as interia.pl press release be considered to adhere to point 3 Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria? If so I would be more than happy to add it of course if it would also save the article from deletion. Also would sites such as this user-made calculator-compedium account towards the notability of the game? Szeszej (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I would consider those only if there were already multiple high-quality articles on which to base an article. Right now, we need the foundation of the article itself, not some outside factors which may suggest notability but don't help us with our main task, which is building an encyclopedia. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate episodes written by Brad Wright[edit]

Stargate episodes written by Brad Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article inefficiently duplicates information contained in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes (and the other lists of Stargate-related episodes) and in this version of the article Brad Wright. The actual list of episodes written by Wright was present in the biography and the plot summary for the individual episodes is in the list of episodes. This "split" is not justified per Wikipedia:Summary style (in fact, see WP:AVOIDSPLIT). I suggest deleting this article and restoring the "Writing credits" section in the biographical article. Article creator notified using {{AFDWarning}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: While the article is tagged as being "under construction", it has not been edited in nearly 10 days. In addition, I contend that the very concept of the article is flawed, so it would not matter even if it was being actively edited. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a strange and unnecessary sub-list article - all of this is covered in the main list of Stargate episodes articles. Also, it's not notable as an individual topic. – Toon(talk) 23:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the nominator and Toon; this seems like unnecessary splitting and duplication of information. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no reason at all for a lists of episodes written by one writer to exist, there is already a list of all of the episodes of the show and a column for the writers of each episode. TJ Spyke 23:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary fork of an established set of articles. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You don't need AFD to undo a split or merge misplaced information. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true, technically, but my other options were to: (1) PROD the article, which I thought someone would contest because of the "under construction" tag; or (2) redirect the article (no merge is necessary since content was mostly duplicated rather than split) and then nominate it at RFD as an implausible search title, which could have been perceived as a run-around to an actual discussion about the article. AfD seemed to me to be the most straightforward approach. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and to avoid a precedent for endless combinations of "List of episodes of _______ that were (written by, directed by, produced by) _________". Mandsford (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a merge and redirect(time being) would probably work just as well.Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • further coment to weak delete Okay if the table in the list of stargate episodes could be sorted then (Can this be done this way or am i misunderstanding templates) then couldnt a person just sort the table and see the episodes written by brad wright and make this article further unnessecary? I think its notable that brad wright writes alot of stargate episodes but i do see that the information is merged and on his own page, and i guess you could argue the notability of the episodes mentioned (which most dont even have wikipedia articles for) isnt really establishedOttawa4ever (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • The way that the list of episodes is currently structured (separate section headings for each season), an editor would need to sort the table for every season to see all of the episodes written and co-written by Wright. It would probably be less time-consuming to just visit Wright's article and view the list there. However, it definitely is possible to make the tables sortable (see Help:Sorting). –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've already removed the episode lists from this article back in November 2008 as crufty list of BW's SG episodes since these are all listed in the LoE. Didn't know they were restored and then split out. Also per nom. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a fan of the show too, but this is an unnecessary duplication of information already contained in Wikipedia. It serves no useful encyclopedic function that isn't already fulfilled also. — BQZip01 — talk 17:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closed a bit early since consensus is clear. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Explained[edit]

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

PRODded by editor, but prod already contested in 2006. Concerns was: "no assertion of notability." It's a religious course written as a book, the article hasn't been significantly expanded since prior prod in '06. – Toon(talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moontoast[edit]

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

Non-notable site, fails WP:WEB, needs complete re-write for WP:NPOV, can't find any WP:RS online supporting notability MuffledThud (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.  Chzz  ►  22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Greg Tyler (t • c) 09:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete site snapshot. This is a simple site synopsis, like any other web property, like Amazon.com or Google. Has been re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.195.253 (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC) — 69.180.195.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak keep & Relist I hate to admonish nominators, but when people first start an article, we should give them an opportunity to improve the article first. This was created only 6 days ago and has made some improvements. We need to invite people to contribute, but we shouldn't expect an FA article on the first edit. I'm not saying this won't eventually be a deleted article, but I think we should give the author time to actually start the article first rather than speed to deletion. — BQZip01 — talk 17:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. OK, it's not brilliant, but, frankly, it's interesting and I've seen much less notable subjects escape deletion. The subject seems novel and worthy of a mention in an encyclopaedia, though the article needs some improvement, but as BQZip01 points out, it's not very old and should be given a chance through a collaborative effort to improve it. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give the author some time to improve the article and add any sources he can find. If you still feel it lacks notability, renominate it in a few weeks. Timmeh! 21:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BM Nekutāru[edit]

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Unlicensed anywhere, not even listed in Anime News Network. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment How popular is the magazine it is published in? A large audience is what I consider notable, by direct sales, or sales of the magazine it is featured in. Googling the Japanese name in quotation marks had over 5000 results. [4] Dream Focus 23:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would think that a manga that ran for 12 volumes would be reviewed by publications or websites that normally review manga. Are there any reliable Japanese publications or websites that regularly review manga? If anyone here can read Japanese and does know of reliable sources that review Japanese manga, I think it would be worth checking them. In the first couple pages of Google results I found this [5] which looks like a review, but I can't read Japanese and doubt it is a reliable source. Calathan (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine NewType does, and similar magazines, but few people who read it also edit the en Wiki and Japanese magazines/news sites are notorious among we anime/manga editors for not keeping anything archived. (and correct, that is not a reliable source). The JA wiki is also much less particular about such things, so articles there almost never have reception information at all, just plot and, if lucky, the basics of its release. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.newtype-usa.com/ New Type is owned by Adv Films, isn't it? Do they only review things they release? Dream Focus 09:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He meant the Japanese NewType magazine. ADV licensed the NewType name and some content from the Japanese magazine to publish the U.S. version. When NewType USA was still being published, it covered content regardless of who published it, not just ADV's titles. Calathan (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weekly_Shōnen_Champion is a weekly magazine that has been running continuously for 40 years now. Being in it for 12 volumes, makes you notable enough to have your own article on wikipedia. Dream Focus 10:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The manga didn't run for 12 "volumes" of the magazine (a "volume" of a magazine sometimes refers to one year of issues), it ran for 105 chapters (i.e. about 2 years for a weekly magazine with 1 chapter per week), and then was later collected into 12 tankōbon volumes. Calathan (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the magazine may be notable; everything in it is not ipso facto so. In this case, there are no reliable independent sources that discuss this. Therefore, no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If something ran that long in the magazine, then its notable. It was a significant amount of content which kept people buying the magazine after all. Dream Focus 12:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOTPLOT. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no reliable sources, WP:NOTPLOT. JamesBurns (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried to find reliable sources indicating notability (or even mentioning it at all), but I couldn't (though of course I can't read Japanese and had no idea where to look). Calathan (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No ANN reference. No licensor in US/UK, France, Germany, Spain & Italy. There isn't enough RS third party coverage to assert the Notability and to Verify the exactitude of the content. I read this one and it doesn't mean it is notable. --KrebMarkt 07:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above deletes. — BQZip01 — talk 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. It is safe to assume that the remaining delete !vote, not giving much of an explanation, will be changed to a keep just like the others as soon as the user sees the changes made. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Soon (2008 film)[edit]

Coming Soon (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Thai movie with no assertion of significance either for itself or for its director. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Declined the A7 because A7 doesn't apply to movies, but agree in its current shape it should be deleted.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like I said, in it's current state it was not worth keeping, but this is a perfect example of why we have Speedy Deletion criteria that should be followed. The article is now worth keeping. My hat's off to the people who reworked this.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; not notable  Chzz  ►  22:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep with no disrespects to the nom, as per WP:AFTER I have researched, expanded, and sourced the film's article. The assertion in the article, now well sourced, is that it was the director's debut film. Must have been missed when nominating. That aside, it has had multiple reviews (somehow missed too?), some of which I added to the article's reception section. It was not well received, but it managed to get a lot of coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE. As MichaelQSchmidt pointed out, the article was improvable and should have been improved rather than taking here for missing sources. AFD is not cleanup after all. It clearly meets WP:N in its current state, thus making the delete reasons invalid. Regards SoWhy 09:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep as nominator, per changes made, but I will seek consensus before I withdraw the nomination altogether. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing early per the expansion; it becomes too hard to judge something after that. No other editor besides the nominator wish this to be deleted (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Encounters[edit]

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

No evidence of coverage in reliable sources that might establish notability. Oo7565 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Second Album[edit]

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

Unreleased future album, crystal ballery. Prod denied by author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article is unrelated to the prior "Untitled Second Album" article, other than by its rather non-specific title. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 20:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said last time, Delete and then redirect to The Telescopes, the 2004 re-release of their second album was given this name, unless numerous bands have done the gag, in which case a dab page should be created. Might stop crystal balling. Hiding T 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you have a redirect if you've deleted the page????????  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is where the important words "and then" come into their own. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe you are under the impression that this "Untitled Second Album" is the same as the first article of that name. This is a new article, about a completely different band, so no redirect is appropriate. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are mistaken. I have reviewed all teh facts at hand and taken them into account when making my opinion known. The reason the redirect is appropriate is because as far as I can see The Telescopes are the only band who have actually released an album of this specific name. For me, tidying it up as a redirect makes as much sense as salting it, and perhaps makes it a little more educational. Hiding T 15:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, OK, I see your point. However, I may have made my own point in my confusion: this article title is simply TOO generic! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt too generic a name to redirect (IMHO) unless you fancy making a disambig - that's another option. But the article itself is junk  Chzz  ►  23:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt , STOP.......Hammer time.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quite strongly, per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect The current article violates WP:CRYSTAL and there is no salvageable content in the history. - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Hiding. — BQZip01 — talk 17:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete — No information or reliable sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - reliable sources have verifed that this person was a government minister and a rector of a university. Six days at AfD is sufficient for this one. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul-Razzak Al-Adwani[edit]

Abdul-Razzak Al-Adwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn person Oo7565 (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: GS turned up nothing but wikipedia clones. Notablity not proven and not provable, fails WP:BIO and GNG, so delete. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think we can do a speedy keep because the first two editors to comment supported deletion, which is the really frightening thing about this AfD. Anyone can make a mistake, but for two more people to come in and support that mistake, with nobody correcting them for two days, shows pretty clearly how little research actually goes in to most AfD discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally agree. At some point, someone needs to go through Special:DeletedContributions/Oo7565 and revert those prods which slipped through – just on a quick skim, some were blatantly obvious keeps. – iridescent 21:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed also in looking at his contibutions, many article were deleted before prods could be removed or they be sent to a spurious AfD. Can anyone check those in histories to determine if they indeed deserved to be deleted? I'd hate them falling through the cracks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been done; I've undeleted all the deleted articles where the outcome wasn't obvious (basically, those that didn't meet speedy criteria) and set up procedural AFD discussions for them. – iridescent 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Armour Dunham[edit]

Stanley Armour Dunham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Don't know how he is notable. Teckgeek (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep don't delete. Look at it that have many times clicked the artickle?.--Yeniler (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't delete this page. He helped raise Barack Obama, Jr., who had no other male father figure in his life. If anything, a lot more information should be put in here.

Keep DON'T DELETE this page. BHO is an important Cultural and Political figure to the U.S.A. and the world. It is inspiring to know the family he sprung from just as it is to know that of Abraham Lincoln. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.145.238 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there are certain figures in Barack Obama's life who have been important to him, but I think it is not logical to have articles about them on Wikipedia, as it fails to meet notability guidelines. Have a look at the discussion on the talk page. We don't include people just because their grandchildren become famous in one way. If we do, then Wikipedia will turn into a pile of unwanted biographies in a matter of time. Teckgeek (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom this person really isn't notable on their own. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is well sourced and I believe to pass the notability test. Basket of Puppies 20:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Barack Obama had to become a presidential candidate for the media to get interested in this person, but it happened, and that's enough to make him notable despite WP:NOTINHERITED. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep: I would prefer to see Madelyn and Stanley Dunham re-instated, rather than having seperate articles for each individual, but I would also support keeping this article, because it meets notability guidelines by virtue of multiple reliable mentions. However, it is extremely important to keep WP:NOTINHERITED in everyone's minds when considering this AfD. The mere fact that he is BHO's maternal grandfather does NOT automatically grant him notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo7hs2 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I see notability and enough RS to make an article. remove anything you consider not verified and tag as appropriate  Chzz  ►  23:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient close to head of state to be notable, and there is sufficient usable material. DGG (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge Not notable enough to warrant his own article, I say delete this and merge the material to Barack Obama or a more general article on Obama's family. --Pstanton (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Merge and delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know in what universe this is non-notable. For Wikipedia purpose, the subject's notability has been established by independent reliable sources. --J.Mundo (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has a place in the American public's mind greater than others with undisputed articles. LizzieHarrison 20:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has been hashed out at least twice before, and since then, Obama has served as president for 3 months. He has noted his grandfather, who raised him, several times in speeches. Normally, notability is not inherited, but this exception proves the rule. Close relatives of the POTUS may be notable, depending on their influence - even after death. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepNotability may not be inherited but we're talking about the man who practically raised the first black man to be elected to the most powerful political position in the world! I've seen much flimsier claims to notability that have flown, sop why shouldn't this one?? HJ Mitchell (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanbe Akira[edit]

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

non-notable person, unreferenced for 1 years. fails WP:BIO Oo7565 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article you've linked there is unreferenced. Do you have a reliable source to back that up? = Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are in any actual doubt of that fact, you have only to spend a few seconds Googling to confirm the information. I just did and found the information on Anime News Network straight away. Dream Focus 10:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The correct name is actually Akira Kenbe. The article has been moved to reflect the correction --Farix (Talk) 23:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources discussing the subject of a BLP generally means no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The encyclopedia part of Anime News Network isn't RS any more. Furthermore the source used assert the person contribution won't be accepted as a reliable website. About the notability of the Kenbe Akira, he is not notable enough, two lines aren't enough regardless the sources issue. The Gundam participation is just for a one-shot so this person can't inherit the notability of Gundam. There isn't enough ammunition to write something good, verifiable and more detailed than what is already in the ANN database so delete is the best course of action --KrebMarkt 06:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep of flawed nomination by a nominator proceding alphbetically through Special:Allpages tagging articles for deletion for spurious reasons. Subject easily passes WP:CREATIVE through use of WP:BEFORE: diff1 diff2. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please could you check the Google results before making a such statement. Results are not conclusive at all concerning the notability of this author. Basic search on Google return a bunch of forums, fan-sites, non-legit download and other free to read websites and the Google book search returned 0 hits for "Kanbe Akira", artist key words. I got 6 results for "Kanbe Akira" [6] most are on the chemistry and biology field books not manga. --KrebMarkt 06:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Much, much more information is required than is currently provided, however, the subject seems notable- I wacked it into the google toolbar and it came up with 30,600 results. I've yet to find more than one that qualifies as a WP:RS but I'll keep looking. It's easier to send an article to AfD than it is to dredge through google in search of sources but if you look hard enough, something might come up. HJ Mitchell (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AFD isn't really the right place for a merger discussion, take it to Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion Secret account 12:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Erick (2007)[edit]

Tropical Storm Erick (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this for deletion because I don't think the article passes WP:N. There is an FAR going on right now, which might help provide some context, as yes, it is a featured article. However, in short, WP:N says that an article must have significant, reliable, independent sources, and I don't believe the article accomplishes that. It lasted for 30 hours in the middle ocean without ever affecting land, and as such, all of the content stems directly from the same source, which is the National Hurricane Center. A professional meteorologist, David M. Roth (User:thegreatdr) agrees with this position, saying
It does seem false to declare an AP story concerning a tropical cyclone as a separate independent source, unless it contains additional quotes by people at the National Hurricane Center which are not contained within a tropical cyclone discussion.

I checked, and there is only one piece of info from one of the news articles that might've been a quote from outside an advisory, which is a very obvious statement that the storm was very far away from land. As there are no sources of information independent of the organization that briefly classified it, the article fails to establish notability. BTW, the tropical cyclone Wikiproject is holding a strawpoll whether all named tropical storms are inherently notable, and the results so far indicate that not all named storms are inherently notable (although it is split with storms 2000-present). So, this will hopefully reach some conclusion that a lot of drama concerning the least important and least viewed tropical storm articles on Wikipedia. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for those of you who think it's notable, what about the storm makes it notable, and does the article emphasize that? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also wish to point out WP:NOTINHERITED. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is not anything in the article that couldnt be merged into the seasonal article or gotten rid of completley. Jason Rees (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 20:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If there were any major issues with notability I am sure those would have prevented editors from passing this as an FA. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:FAC intentionally does not deal with notability; otherwise that forum would become a circus. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also there were several concerns about the storms notability when Erick went through its FAC Jason Rees (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Between the references in the article, and the ones in the FAR, the hurdle of notability has been easily cleared. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources in the article and in the FAR are enough to meet our general notability guideline. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources at FAR, especially those brought up by Ottava Rima, are multiple analyses of the storm by a variety of writers from various reputable sources, including an AP story from MSNBC and a official USA Today blog. That is certainly enough for notability in my view. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no effects, property damage or fatalities were reported; no ships were affected, and no tropical cyclone warnings and watches were issued"... what is the point of an article then? All the news stories just quote the original source. It's not like they're getting their information from that source and adding analysis... they're just quoting it and ending the article. I don't really think that's non-trivial coverage. But back to my initial point, this is a storm that had no effect whatsoever. It does not seem to meet the dictionary definition of "notable"... and it's very debatable whether it meets the Wikipedia definition. But even if it did... it's a storm of no importance at all... doesn't common sense kick in at some point? Countless news outlets covered the 2009 White House Easter Egg Roll... but if it had no impact whatsoever on anything... would we still be compelled to include an article on it? (actually, the 2009 egg roll probably had more of an impact than this storm, as did numerous regular season sporting events, another widely-covered type of event we almost never include WP articles on). --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This storm was recognized as an official entity by the United States Government; that seems more than notable enough to me. (Disclaimer: I'm the author/FAC nominator). –Juliancolton | Talk 23:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what the US Government recognises Erick as an official entity - I bet that the US Government recognises everyone in the world as an official entity but that doesn’t make everyone notable. So why should Cyclones be the same?Jason Rees (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The difference goes to the core of Wikipedia:Notability. Whilst you or I may be recognized by governments — as is indeed the long-suffering example of the plot of grassland next to my house — as much as tropical storms are, people don't publish works about you or me, or about the plot of grassland. Notability is not fame, importance, or significance. It's not Google hit counts. And it's not size nor uniqueness. It's being noted, in depth, in multiple published works by people independent of the subject who have good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Part of that formula is the "published works". Make the "How is the subject different from me?" argument when you have some works published about you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (EC) So technically, Erick is one of 841 similar official entities recognized by the US gov't, since that's how many storms are recognized by the government in the best track. Hm, 1 out of 841... doesn't sound that notable. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the contrary, there were only 15 storms during the 2007 Pacific hurricane season; one out of 15 seems notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And to Jason Rees, not everybody in the world has received nearly 2000 Google hits. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • JC, first, WP:GHITS, and BTW, 2000 hits is really small for such a recent tropical storm. A storm from just weeks after Erick got 23,600 hits, thanks to its land impact. Also, WP:NOTINHERITED - just because it formed in a recent season, how does it make this storm notable? Being one out of fifteen in a season just means that it should be included with the other 14 in the season article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:GHITS is a mere essay. Also, that's completely irrelevant. There are at least 1000 reliable sources on this particular storm, which clearly establishes notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Or it means that are a few hundred mirrors to the Wikipedia site, a few hundred mirrors of NHC material, and a few hundred news stories which are basically copied press releases of the NHC. I'm with Chiliad - let's use common sense. Really, how is notability established for a storm that lasted for 30 hours in the middle of nowhere? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm sure that as a government-funded event the 2009 Easter Egg role was recognized as well, probably by more gov. agencies than this storm. And as someone else has pointed out, the government recognizes hundreds of millions of people as taxpayers, census responders, etc. I don't buy that "government recognition" alone is important - so what else is important about this storm? As for the claim about 1,000 reliable sources on this storm (which I doubt), there are "at least 1,000" reliable sources on last night's Reds-Brewers game, and I can guarantee you we'd never retain an article on it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm simply following WP:N, which states that in general, a subject is notable if it has received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I don't believe it passes that, as all of the newspaper reports are regurgitating material from the NHC, which qualifies them. If anything, they're tertiary sources. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • How so? Thegreatdr said "It does seem false to declare an AP story concerning a tropical cyclone as a separate independent source, unless it contains additional quotes by people at the National Hurricane Center which are not contained within a tropical cyclone discussion", and there are several sources in the article that meet that requirement. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (replying to Julian's latest reply to me directly, edit conflicted) It's a very flawed concept then. I'm rather sure if I created an article on that baseball game I mentioned, it would be deleted, regardless of what a guideline says, even if I cited 30 sources. I could do that, but I won't... it'd be a waste of everyone's time. I understand you have the letter of policy on your side if we assume these are distinct sources with non-trivial coverage, but I mean... the letter of policy leads to a rather bizarre outcome here, and one that would be applied to Tropical Storm articles, but not to baseball game articles, for entirely subjective reasons. I'm asking for a logical explanation of why this storm is important, and I don't mean this as an insult to you or anyone, but all I'm getting in response is "it's allowed for by a literal reading of this guideline", which doesn't answer my question. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, that's a valid argument. I feel that all named tropical cyclones are notable for several reasons. First of all, as I mentioned, most recent storms meet WP:N. Second, tropical cyclones are relatively rare, as I mentioned above, since only about 10–20 of them occur every year in a given ocean basin. Additionally, tropical cyclones are some of the most well-documented weather phenomena, thus demonstrating their collective, and individual, notability. I could be wrong, however. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that, if you could take the average tropical cyclone, it has more of a measurable impact, both in real terms and within its own field of observers, than the average baseball game? I'd agree with that. That's basically the kind of argument I was asking for, and it's not easy to refute off the top of my head. I'll think about it and comment later, quite possibly. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally disagree with that. A baseball game is a part of a series, and each game affects the next, building a set of stats for each player and the team over the course of a season. If something happened during one game, it could affect a game two weeks later. Tropical cyclones are usually isolated. There are about 100 each year, and most do not have much of an affect on the next. Storms like Erick, which didn't affect anyone, is in a completely different ballfield (pun intended) than a landfalling hurricane. The only reason the average tropical cyclone has more of an impact than baseball games is due to the more impacting ones. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that affect the notability of this particular storm? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that this storm is one 100 each year worldwide and one of at least 841 in the basin, meaning that tropical cyclones aren't that rare, and the fact that tropical cyclones being notable as a whole does not mean that each individual storm is notable. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. There were 15 storms in the Eastern Pacific basin during the period of an entire year. Therefore, tropical cyclones are notable, and therefore, Tropical Storm Erick is notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Erick is one of 15 storms in the season, that only means it should be in the season article. I don't see the logic in your argument that Erick should get an article, just because it was part of the season. Several other storms during the season don't have articles. I'll ask again, what makes Erick notability on its own? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable because it passes WP:N. There's nothing else to it. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's what I disagree with. There's nothing else to it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, on its own, this storm actually was less important than the average baseball game (sorry if this line of analogy is getting obnoxious by now), as indeed, this storm had no apparent effect on anything. It's claim to fame is thus limited to being part of a group of things that are, in general, quite important. But the question is whether we include it because of that association, because I think it's clear that the sourcing available for the average baseball game is actually stronger than the sourcing for this storm. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may indeed be true, but I still feel the sourcing for this storm is strong enough to establish notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but hopefully by the baseball game analogy, you can see that sourcing alone doesn't guarantee an article, as the baseball game article would be laughed out of Wikipedia, even with many sources cited. Thus, the defense for this article is that isn't that sources exist, because sources don't always mean inclusion, but the defense is that the storm is a part a small group of generally very notable things. I am not sure I buy that association as justification for inclusion, but I can't argue against it either at this point. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm tempted to weak keep this by virtue of it's featuredness. Regardless, I think it's too short for a FA and should be merged. But it's still an FA nonetheless... Sceptre (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember that the FA process has nothing to do with notability. There is precedent for featured articles being deleted at AfD (please don't make me look it up - I think there were two). Karanacs (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to get them to issue a statement with a minimum size requirement for FA and was shot down a long time ago. I gave some links to Julian at the FAR to help expand the page a little. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The storm has had the attention of multiple US government institutions, along with world groups and the rest. The storm has provided valuable data in regards to Global Warming and has been discussed in various news media. The size of the page being over 10k is just further verification of this. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Data for Global Warming? That's not what it says in the article, unless you mean that every storm in the past few years is data, in which case the storm isn't notable since it's not special. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether the entry needs to be kept or merged is something that can be discussed at WP:MRFD. Since this article has been featured in the past, full deletion would be a bad idea. Featured article criteria weren't any different in 2007 then they are now. If the topic was not notable enough to be included, it would've shown through a lack of sources that would've stopped it from being promoted in the first place. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and Speedy Close please from anybody who knows the current ins and outs of AFD closure) I don't believe this article meets the FA criteria and opposed its promotion, but this is "Articles for Deletion". Nobody is suggesting that it be deleted, not even the nominator. The suggestion from Titoxd and YellowMonkey on the FAR that this discussion should be brought here was wrong. Yomanganitalk 10:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tong[edit]

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

Beside the point-of-view issue by article creator User:Alex Tong26, the team is barely a semi-pro team (third tier down in BAFL) and therefor individual players aren't notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Looking through several other team pages, I see no other players that have their own page. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean conflict of interest not point of view. The article was originally nominated for CSD, but there is a claim of importance/significance, and to my knowledge there hasn't been any discussion on what makes an American Football player notable in the British system. While I don't think this player is worthy of an article, it is definitely not a CSD candidate. The claim of being the Offensive MVP for a professional league is a claim of significance.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I can see how you would think that, but this is now an AFD discussion, so anything about the CSD is moot now. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. consensus is quite clear, almost SNOW-worthy. This is also the third AfD for this article and with similar results Valley2city‽ 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't know what this page was originally, but it is now a completely unencyclopedic forum for editors to list out any old thing that they happen to think deserves ridicule. Currently the page contains references to

  • Objects (like the Shroud of Turin or Laundry Balls
  • Non-scientific 'modern myths' (like Ufology or Tutankhamun's curse)
  • Specific people (Erik von Daniken)
  • Arguable actual pseudoscience (like Magnetic Therapy and Biorhythms)
  • Well-established academic fields (like psychoanalysis)
  • Practices which are neither scientific nor explicitly pseudoscientific (like Traditional Chinese Medicine)

and other sundry, unclassifiable references, and there is absolutely no distinction made between various kinds or levels of pseudoscience. Further, the criteria for inclusion/exclusion are so vague - allowing any reference from any notable source that might be construed by a wikipedia editor as implying pseudoscience - that almost anything could be listed on this page; content is determined more by mild edit-warring than by any particular overarching meaning. For a recent example, editors keep adding Psychoanalysis to the list, and keep removing Darwinism, although it's precisely the same source - Karl Popper - that calls both of them pseudoscience; pure and unabashed POV-pushing.

The page is close to being an attack page, though I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion. I'd be willing to see it rescued, but so far I've had no luck getting any reasoned response to the changes I've tried to make, and I see no reason to keep struggling against this degree of opposition. This page is an eyesore, and if we cannot come up with a restrictive and careful set of criteria for what goes on this page, and how entries presented, the page should simply be removed. Ludwigs2 19:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, the previous AfDs for this article are here and here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the argument presented makes no case for administrative action but rather is about editorial issues. Does that article need a lot of work - yes, is it a fit subject for an article - yes. There is no policy based reason for a) this version of the article to be deleted or b) for not to have an article on this subject matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, but a completely unencyclopedic page is certainly an administrative issue. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - it isn't appropriate to use AFD to solve editorial disputes. Try WP:AE, since the article is covered by several arbcomm rulings. Guettarda (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and resolve criteria on talk page, subject to full compliance with policies. Note that Darwinism has never been called pseudoscience by Karl Popper; looks like pure and unabashed POV-pushing trying to add or defend that item. . dave souza, talk 19:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe this list was originally a spin-out from Pseudoscience, created to move the edit-warring in the list of examples in an otherwise relatively stable article elsewhere. Calling something a "pseudoscience" is of course an attack. Attempts at creating objective criteria for pseudoscience invariably end up including some (relatively) "respectable" fields such as psychoanalysis, or excluding some of the "fringe" fields that one would like to label in this way. I believe this is in part because some fields don't entirely deserve their respectability or lack thereof, and in part because a "list of pseudosciences" (the original title, before an extended renaming discussion) suffers from the same problems as a "list of crappy cars" or a "list of people with bad taste". --Hans Adler (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - if anything at all - to "List of pseudosciences" and have the inclusion criteria mirror WP:PSCI; whereas, the resulting list article will have entries mirroring that of Category:Pseudoscience but with an explanation next to each entry (as we have it now). Otherwise, I'd vote Keep and remind everyone that being included in this list does not mean that a topic is definitively pseudoscientific; only that some notable source has characterized it as such. Essentially, either this is a "List is of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and we abide by WP:NPOV by including all notable characterizations past and present or we change it to a "List of pseudosciences" and we only include obvious pseudosciences or topics which are generally considered pseudosciences. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Category:Pseudoscience or adopt Levine2112s excellent proposal. From what I can see in the talk page archives this 'inclusion criteria' discussion has been going on since its inception. However much we have tried, the lack of alignment between ad-hoc criteria and wikipedia policy and guidelines continues and in all probability will continue be, an exercise in limited returns. As it stands it fails to attribute opinion correctly in all but 5 of its entries, it has a consistent NPOV issue due to the selective application of the inclusion criteria. Unomi (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we are here again - and the same crew (who will be the nominator for the 4th attempt?) - goodness me... Shot info (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid article. The main problem that I see with it is a lack of clarity on what should be included, but that is properly dealt with on the talk page. —Fiziker t c 23:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a perfectly valid list, it may need a renaming, but not because it is encyclopedic.--Pstanton (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In regard to editorial requirements, the list is perfectly valid. Concerns about individual entries on the list can be discussed via the article's Talk Page. Deleting the entire article seems heavy-handed. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • sorry if it's heavy-handed: I just don't know what else to do with an unencyclopedic article that that people are actively trying to keep unencyclopedic. I'm open to suggestions... --Ludwigs2 01:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no problem with the topic. Lots of argument about what should or shouldn't go on the page on the page isn't grounds for deletion. This article needs a carefully defined scope. Sifaka talk 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this list originally was part of Wikipedia's organizational scheme, and was used in place of categories, which did not yet exist. It's also usable as part of alternate navigation through indexes, if it would be so linked. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Sources generally regarded as reliable on the topic ... blah blah blah, just close this. Do we need DR, or can everyone play nice and bring well-written edits and arguments amply supported by quality sources for a few weeks until the next time someone feels like making a point? - Eldereft (cont.) 05:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is better to contain the controversy to one article. MaxPont (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination. Verbal chat 09:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppsoe that applies to the last two times it was nominated as well? and maybe the next few (because there's no sign that this problem is going away anytime soon, without some major revisions to the page). tsk, tsk... please keep your comments on topic, and off other editors. --Ludwigs2 21:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not interested in the last two times, but this time while you were in the middle of a content dispute and with no new issues was clearly disruptive. I suggest you withdraw the nomination as a keep. Verbal chat 07:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • you can keep beating the disruptive drum until your knuckles turn blue - that silliness is not going to get you anywhere. but if you want me to withdraw the nomination, I'm willing to do so if and when I see some clear indications that the obvious and deep problems this page suffers from are under revision. that means that you need to stop reverting my edits blindly, and start discussing the changes I want to make with some language that doesn't amount to shut up and go away. and yes, I'm talking to you specifically. until that time I have to believe that you're deeply committed to keeping this page a misbegotten, misleading mess, in which case I firmly believe it should be deleted as a violation of wikipedia's content standards. ball's in your court, Verbs: you going to keep being a bear, or are you going to work with me to fix what desperately needs fixing? --Ludwigs2 06:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "misbegotten, misleading mess"? You keep repeating descriptions of this sort, but it is your misbegotten perception that needs fixing, not the list. Please stop the attacks and insistance that it's your way or the highway. When you aren't getting your way in the face of overwhelming consensus to the contrary, to threaten that you will continue to fight this is being very disruptive. -- BRangifer (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your edit summary is factually incorrect and inappropriate. Ludwigs2 is trying to fix a problem with this list, not to "disrupt". Any disruption on this page is due to inappropriate accusations against Ludwigs2, to which he is merely responding. (And in a slightly more controlled way.) See WP:KETTLE. As to the dispute at the article: That situation was a bit more symmetric because Ludwigs2 was a bit more bold than is advisable at that page. But that's hardly the crime as which it is being represented here. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeatedly making AfDs when there have been no new significant arguments for doing so is very disruptive and often blockable. Be very careful. You're misusing this process to settle an editorial dispute that shouldn't even be occurring. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • repeatedly? what are you on about? The other nominations were made months ago, by other editors. Look, Bull, I can see you angling around in your recent posts to find something that you can use to attack me (as an editor). Stop; and please focus on the topic. this AfD is not going to go away because of some minor procedural error, and it's not going to go away because you make a point of casting aspersions on my character. it will go away of its own accord after people have discussed the issue. attacking me isn't going to do a damned bit of good, and is just going to inflame things unnecessarily. (of course, I don't really expect you to respect that logic, but I thought I'd put it there in print for the record). --Ludwigs2 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? What does this article offer beyond the listing available at Category:Pseudoscience? Should the pseudoscience articles be recategorized into sub-categories of pseudoscience, as is done at this listing article? If that were done, what would the article offer that the category article doesn't offer? --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It offers clear sourcing as an inclusion criteria. You can't source a category. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two important differences: Inclusion of a topic in the list need not leave a trace in the article on the topic. So even if the list did mention that creationists attack Darwinism as pseudoscience, this wouldn't be reflected in Darwinism. And inclusion in a list can be commented while inclusion in a category is a yes/no matter. This is important for borderline cases such as psychoanalysis, an article that discusses that discusses that the subject has been called pseudoscience, but which is not in the category. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even read that link? It's about editors writing their own opinions in articles, not about editors documenting real world opinions using V & RS. That happens to be what Wikipedia does! -- BRangifer (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid article. Does it have problems? Yes, and likely will as long as we have editors warring and wikilawyering to de-list their favorite pseudoscience. The current afd seems rather a pointy part of all that. Vsmith (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For an editor who has expressed that they "don't know what this page was originally," the nominator has certainly been involved in its disputes, and has now started this without announcing it on the talk page! That's a serious procedural fault. I just discovered this by chance. Editorial disputes should not be solved by AfDs. Several other editors have made POINTY attempts to sabotage the list by threatening AfDs and by listing absurdities, all in their attempts to ultimately protect their favorite pseudoscience from mention, even though notable V & RS have declared their pet ideas to be pseudoscientific. This list allows Wikipedia to do its mission, which is to use V & RS to document the real world. Why should promoters of pseudoscience be allowed to sabotage the list? The POINT violations need to stop and certain editors be topic banned from the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also only found this by accident, and the nomination was clearly disruptive, looking at the nominators recent behaviour at the article. Verbal chat 07:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFDs are advertised by placing a large template at the head of the article and this was done in this case. It is sadly the norm that articles are brought to AFD without any discussion but this was not done in this case, as the nominator has engaged in extensive and intelligent comment and criticism of the article on its talk page. Talk of disruption is therefore quite mistaken. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I can see no disruption, just people who are angry that this problematic list has been nominated again. The AfD was advertised in the usual way, and in fact plenty of interested people found it. I suggest that instead of accusing each other all interested editors try to get consensus on a set of objective inclusion criteria. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, the behaviour before this nomination, and the nomination itself, meet the criteria of behaviour which is disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. I don't have a problem with the way the AfD was advertised, although a note on the talk page would have been helpful, but the nomination itself was not made for the good of the project. I'm surprised that CW isn't quoting WP:BEFORE etc. (but not very surprised). Verbal chat 12:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is based on reliable sources, the topic is notable, making a list is appropriate because there are multiple books and papers makings list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific stuff, the pseudoscience category does not allow for topics that were once called pseudoscience but are no longer called like that (like Meteorites, that article is not going to get into that category), etc.
(About the Karl Popper thing, there is a discussion here about how Popper a) didn't call it pseudoscience b) later recanted his opinion that it was not falsifiable, so that would be a non-issue.). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:LIST#Purposes_of_lists allows for redundancy between lists and categories.
I'm not sure why the nominator thinks that stuff is being listed because of thinking that it deserves ridicule; stuff is being included because it's been characterized as pseudoscience in RS, period. Entries are being discussed in a case by case basis.
About listing together crackpot stuff with more serious stuff, that's solved by editing and tweaking more the sections, and not by wholesome deletion. There were greater problems with sources, and they were already solved by editing.
About not being an encyclopedic topic, this is normally decided by seeing if there are sources making the same sort of lists, see:
Finally, we are not going to decide here at wikipedia where pseudoscience finishes and science starts, since this has been discused throughly since at least the 1860s[15], we are just going to echo that RS called X a pseudoscience, and its explanations of why it did so.
--Enric Naval (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enric, You've missed the issue entirely. the problem is that 'pseudoscience' is not an analytic term, and so there is no absolutely no sense or consistency to the list. Take the Shroud of Turin, for instance: The shroud itself is merely an object, belief that it represents an image of Christ is a religious belief (a holdover from when the Catholic church kept relics of saints). All of the scientific investigation done on the shroud (that I know of) has either been inconclusive or leaned towards suggesting the Shroud is a forgery - . The only reason this is on the list is because some scholar was of the opinion that the topic itself was silly and research into it sillier, and while I wouldn't disagree, this is not the result of scientific research and therefore not a reliable source for this topic. it's just some guy's opinion. so, you have a scholar who (a) insults religion and (b) disregards what appears to be valid disconfirming scientific evidence, and you have wikipedia bolstering this misconception and using it to cast aspersions on other topics. and yet you're arguing we should include this on the grounds of literalism (that he's a reliable source, and policy says that reliable sources are included, regardless of whether what they say has merit...). what are you, a closet creationist?
the fact is, editors on this list are doing doing their darned best to try to dictate what is and is not pseudoscience; as I keep saying the only reason for the existence of this page is to promote a vast association fallacy. but if this deletion request fails, trust me, I'll take you up on reorganizing the sections. --Ludwigs2 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point of the entry for the Shoud of Turin. The pseudoscience being referred to isn't the valid analysis that have been done—those of course are scientific (by definition of valid analysis). Instead it seems to be included because there are people who, despite the scientific evidence, claim that the studies where flawed for unscientific reasons. The entry does not make this clear and even if it did, I'm not sure that it is worth including. However, these are decisions to be made in the talk page. This is not a reason to delete a page.
We all know that there is the demarcation problem. But don't fall into the trap that if there is continuum you can't distinguish things on either end. There necessarily will be grey areas but most pseudoscience can be readily distinguished from most science. If you have problems with what you think is a grey area discuss it on the talk page, but deleting a page over this is an extreme response. —Fiziker t c 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fiziker: the AfD was prompted by the mindless resistance I met on the page towards making any changes, not by the nature of the page itself. as I said in the proposal above, I'd happily revise the page to something sane, but I'm not going to:
  1. fight with people who are heartily defending an irrational, pejorative set of rules for inclusions
  2. leave a page (that almost everyone here acknowledges has serious flaws) in its seriously flawed state because of point 1
Now, if I saw one indication that the proponents of this page were seriously considering ways to improve the inclusion criteria and structure, I'd withdraw this AfD and get to making the page better. unfortunately, what I see (with a few exceptions) is a number of people far more interested in attacking me and defending the status quo than in creating a program for page improvement. please point out that it's been months since the last AfD, and the page is still crappy - this does not speak well to those people who say keep it, we'll improve it. I'll repeat: show me that this page is actually on its way to being something other than mindless trash, or delete it and forget about it. wikipedia does not need a sucky, misinformation-filled page like this one currently is. --Ludwigs2 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This subject has been a matter of disruption in itself, since it is possible for any editor to brand anything as a pseudo-science in an involved and complex way throughout wiki, which demands a lot of policing, since the term is not only pejorative and polemical rather than scientific, it also serves as a flag of self-publication for self-serving clubs of online self-styled skeptics that amounts to little other than commercial advertisement.
It is rare, on the other hand, to find authorities publishing lists of "stuff that is NOT pseudoscience" - so that the subject is open to non-neutrality inherently. For the same reason, there is no strong cadre of "wikipedians opposed to pseudo-skepticism", and this is liable to skew the present vote. I understand the reason for the proposed deletion but the particular page is only part of the problem. Redheylin (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Question: were there two previous AfDs? It says this is the third AfD on this topic and I've searched and have not found #s 1 and 2... Valley2city‽ 15:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are under the old name: first nomination and second nomination. —Fiziker t c 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. It would have been useful for the box at the top... Oh well, consensus is still the same and obvious. Time to close. Valley2city‽ 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's So California[edit]

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

I really can't find any evidence that either of these songs is sufficiently notable for its own article. If neither merits an article, then why have a disambiguation? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I (usually) wouldn't create an article on a song that didn't reach the top 10. Sometimes I do though, but they'd usually be no lower than 15 or 20. "She's So California" was a #24 hit for Gary Allan in early-2009, a slow climber, and his first single to miss the top 20 since "Lovin' You Against My Will" in 2000. I originally intended not to create an article on the song due to it's #24 peak, and so I created the article as a redirect. However, when I found a source for the song at Country Universe.net, I decided to create an actual article on the song. However, despite the source being there, the article was redirected back to the album article. I only created the page because of the source. I undid the redirect on "God Must Really Love Me" (which is still in it's thirties on the chart, a #31 peak right now) because of the same reason, I found a source on it. And is the article(s) good regardless because there's enough sources to warrant one? I still keep an eye out on a song's chart position though, and whether it would be notable or not before creating an article. If a song's a top 10 I'll create an article on it. An 11-15 song maybe, but I usually think first. A 16-20 song unlikely, unless I find a source on it or if the song's singer is very popular. Below top 20 not really, unless I find a source on it. A current single, usually if it's high enough, specifially a top 40. That's usually my (unofficial) method of creating song articles. Anyway, I created that song's article because I found a source on it, and yet it was still redirected. I can probably understand why though. Ryanbstevens (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--sorry, I don't understand what Ryanbstevens is trying to say. What I do see is that a disambiguation page for two non-notable songs is useless. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I concur with the Nom & Drmies.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. In short, i created a page on "She's So California", and "God Must Really Love Me" because i found a source for both of them. It's good regardless if there's a source for it. I do however understand why "She's So California" was redirected, and nominated for deletion. Do you understand it now Drmies? Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, since what's under discussion here is a disambiguation page, not an article, or two. Whatever the history behind this dab page, it's moot now, since it does not disambiguate between articles. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so you know, i created an article for Gary Allan's version because i found a source, but it was redirected by another user. Then it became a disambugation page. I did not create the disambiguation part of the page. I had no part in that. Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Here's the fact. This didn't start out as a disambiguation page. This started out as an article for Gary Allan's "She's So California". Despite the sources, it was redirected due to non-notability. Then eventually, this became what it is now, a disambugation page. However, i know what this discussion is about, and let me say that this disambugation page shouldn't exist because it's just too short, or that as mentioned above, neither song was a big hit.
  • There's a similiar disambugation page for songs called "How Was I to Know", which there were two of as well, one by John Michael Montgomery, and the other by Reba McEntire. Neither are related. That disambugation page exists, and will remain because both songs were big hits, one a #1 hit, and the other a #2 hit.
  • However this one about the two "She's So California" songs, since Adam Gregory's version was only a #19 hit in Canada in 2006, and Gary Allan's version was a #24 hit in the United States in early-2009, there shouldn't really be a disambugation page for these two songs unless they both have articles. One of which i have created before, but redirected by another user. I'll revert this page back to it's original form when i created it. We'll see what happens then. Ryanbstevens (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I undid the rebuild of the article for now, mainly because you removed the afd tag and there were other editors voicing a simple deletion. I think a good compromise would be to move the 9513 and Country Universe reviews of "She's So California" to a subsection on the Living Hard article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A subject doesn't have to be notable to warrant a redirect. Neither song is notable, however, either could arguably warrant a redirect to the album. Since there are two different songs I can see justifying a disambiguation page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JAGE[edit]

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

Non-notable personal software project. Judging from the username and content, the article appears to have been created by the software's author. Google search revealed only three non-encyclopedia links about the software: the same message board post referenced in the article (written by the author), another message board post in which the software is listed in a user's signature (possibly the author?), and an entry on AcronymFinder.com. Ringbang (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; checked into it; no RS  Chzz  ►  23:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sources, no assertion of notability. Tevildo (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. In fact, there's almost no coverage even in unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 by Athaenara. (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ClearBooks[edit]

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

Spam. COI. Not notable. Lacks V and RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 | Talk 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Blackman[edit]

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

One of many articles that has crept into Wikipedia on British prospective parliamentary candidates. WP:POLITICIAN does not attribute notability to candidates, local politics are not considered inherently notable, and there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I42 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - former member of the London Assembly. This position brings considerable notability (you may note that we have articles on all current and former members of the Assembly); with only 25 members representing 7.5 million people, this is an achievement more on a par with election to the Welsh or Northern Irish Assembly. This is supported by policy. Wikipedia:Notability (people) gives examples of positions considered notable. One is "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges", and links to a list of national divisions, which counts the region of Greater London as being of the first level. Warofdreams talk 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Warofdreams. MikeHobday (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Collins[edit]

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

One of many articles that has crept into Wikipedia on British prospective parliamentary candidates. WP:POLITICIAN does not attribute notability to candidates. In this case there is mention in a couple of national publications which may assert notability, but it's not clear cut - the articles are about a number of people. Bringing forward for discussion. I42 (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it. If he really is one of the 50 people to watch in public life, then significant coverage in third party reliable sources will, doubtless, appear, and at that time he'll be eligible for a Wikipedia article. But what we have is not significant coverage; it's passing mentions of his name.

    British politicians are quite alive to the value of Wikipedia as a promotional tool, so I think we need to be quite active in paring back material about British politicians where there isn't real evidence of notability.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a little coverage shows that he is being well-publicised by the Conservative Party, but he's not received coverage for doing anything, for the obvious reason that, as yet, he's not done anything particularly notable. Warofdreams talk 02:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time characters in The Simpsons[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Exactly what it says on the tin: A list of one-time characters. The Simpsons is known for having 80 trillion characters, do we really need to list every single one? This list, surprisingly for a Simpsons article, is entirely devoid of sources, and I can't find any evidence of improvement since the last four AFDs. I have no idea why anyone would want to keep this article, as it's nothing but an indiscriminate list, crammed with OR and fansite-worthy material. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable characters, a lot of these characters were key plot pieces of the episodes they are in. CTJF83Talk 18:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but we had problems with users adding long drawn out descriptions of the characters on the episode page, clogging it up with too much cruft. CTJF83Talk 19:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for the same reason as this. And for once, can all the users voting "keep" please leave WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IAR out of it this time? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the characters are only notable for having been in one episode, they should be able to be discussed in the article for that episode. Presently, this seems like an indiscriminate list, full of WP:OR. Karanacs (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, fails WP:NOT on multiple levels, fails WP:WAF, fails WP:N, etc etc. Trivial, beyond minor characters and clearly redundant to the better written episode lists since they are all "one-time" characters = one-episode each. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonable spinout of an iconic franchise, with an appropriate level of sourcing for these chracters. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for basically the same reasons I gave at the last AFD. I agree that we can discuss these characters at the individual episode pages. However, a page like this is still useful for navigational purposes. The main list of Simpsons episodes doesn't contain any episode descriptions, and while the season LoEs do, most readers will not know by heart which season a character appeared in. They'd have to browse through 20+ lists to find the information they want, which is asking too much. On top of all that, readers may only vaguely remember what the character's name was, and how it is spelled, which rules out redirects to episode pages as a useful solution. (Imagine the mispellings for Adil Hoxha!) But browsing through a page like this, they can hopefully find what they need. It should be noted that most of these characters do have fairly memorable roles in their episodes; they're not random background characters. And verifiability isn't a huge problem; there are dozens of sources that could be used to verify this info. Zagalejo^^^ 21:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Characters if they are important one-shot characters can be described in relevant episode articles. While this list is potentially useful, usefulness is not a factor for keeping this around. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep precisely because it is useful. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are used by people to look things up. If people are trying to look one of these characters up -- and believe me, I volunteer at a library, how do I find out more about this TV show character is a very more than daily question -- this article makes it much easier to find the character. Zagalejo said it better than I do. And is exactly right! Wikipedia ain't belle lettres. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see the same arguments presented that last half dozen times people have tried to delete this page and it always ends up a no consensus. Perhaps we should try to work out a compromise, rather than going through this afd every 6 months. -- Scorpion0422 22:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for this reason - Say you wanted to find a one-off character but you don't know what episode they were in. It would be in no-one's interest to constantly open articles, find out that they weren't in that episode, then go back and click another one. You'd have to be pretty dedicated - and have a lot of time on your hands - to do it (I'm only speaking for myself here, but I'd probably stop at around a dozen). Having the information in one handy page would be much better (and less time-consuming as well). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another comment If this article is kept, I am going to convert it into table form and try to add as many refs as I can. I haven't done it in the past because it's a big job, and why should I spend time improving an article that people are going to nominate for deletion based just on the title? -- Scorpion0422 22:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What stopped you from doing this the first five (5) times this article was kept? Why is this time different? / edg ☺ ☭ 11:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important aspect of an important show. There are certainly enough sources to keep the article, although even if there were none, I would still say keep. And I do agree that this is being nominated just because of the title. It would be interesting if we did an experiment with this and renamed it "List of significant Simpsons characters who have appeared in one episode", and see if it is nominated for deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The show is important enough for this to be justified, and there are sources DGG (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I do not think these one-off characters are important. This is trivial, and saying this list of trivia is important places undue weight on American TV shows. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. People are arguing that this article should be kept because otherwise no one will know which episode certain one-time characters appeared in. Um...has no one heard of Google???
Or how about snpp.com? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because I think this is a very poor nom, based largely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with faulty reasoning. Here's why:
    • "Exactly what it says on the tin: A list of one-time characters"
      • What is that old saying?... Oh right, never judge a book by its cover (or in this case, the merits of an article by its title)
    • "The Simpsons is known for having 80 trillion characters, do we really need to list every single one?"
      • It doesn't list every one, just the ones that played an important part in the plot of an episode (or at least in theory, IPs then to add very minor characters)
    • "This list, surprisingly for a Simpsons article, is entirely devoid of sources"
      • You lost all credibility with that statement because it became painfully obvious that this is a blind nomination and you likely didn't even bother to scroll down the page. Perhaps my eyes are deceiving me, but I see 20 references in the version before my minor clean up effort.
    • "And I can't find any evidence of improvement since the last four AFDs."
      • The page DID improve last time, more refs were added and crap was removed.
    • "I have no idea why anyone would want to keep this article"
    • "it's nothing but an indiscriminate list"
      • Explained above.
    • "crammed with OR and fansite-worthy material."
      • I actually think that this page has very little OR and fansite worthy material than most character lists because it is basically a retelling of what happened in the episode. There is little actual original research. Sure, there are a lot of unsourced statements, but users these days seem to think that all unsourced statements are automatically original research, which isn't true. I don't think it's really fansite material - the kind of stuff you would find at a fansite would be a lot cruftier. -- Scorpion0422 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One more thing...Scorpion, I'm not sure which side you're on, but I think you need to understand that just because someone nominates an article for deletion or votes "delete" doesn't necessarily mean it's solely because they don't like it. In this case, it's because we don't think it follows the necessary Wikipedia guidelines. Now, I'll admit Hammer was off when he said the article doesn't have any sources, but he's not off about anything else (I know, because I nominated it last time). At any rate, it's not right to ignore all the rules in a vote just because it's about an article you like. Whoever falls into that category should maybe recuse themselves from the discussion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you need to understand that just because someone votes keep doesn't necessarily mean it's solely because they like it. -- Scorpion0422 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do understand that; it's just that in this case, when people vote "keep" that seems to be the only reasoning they give. And like I said before, why can't people use search engines to find out which episodes characters were in? I notice no one has been able to respond to that question yet. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • One other thing I noticed: I checked the contributions of all the users voting "keep", and...surprise, surprise! Their edits are mainly for Simpsons-related articles. Isn't that a conflict of interest? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Conflict of interest?! What? Isn't that the point of Wikiprojects to improve related articles, such as this article? Should we not give our opinion because we are members of WP:Doh? Should it be left to people who never edit Simpsons articles, and have no idea about any of them? Did you really look at the contributions? DitzyNizzy appears to comment on a lot of AfDs and doesn't edit Simpsons articles, neither does DGG, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, or Jclemens. So please be more careful by saying all users voting keep edit Simpsons articles. And as far as a Google search result, I typed a few into Google, and came up with 438,000 to 1.9 million search results, who has time to look through that many pages for information. CTJF83Talk 07:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • But you can look through them; it sounds like you just don't want to. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That wasn't a particularly constructive thing to say or way of saying it either AM. Having an interest in a topic area means just that, it doesn't mean everyone who works on Simpsons articles is here to votestack. Someoneanother 11:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm as cool as a cucumber and twice as rubbery. Once one side of the debate's motives get attributed to X it turns into "us and them", which is not good. Someoneanother 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see how this could be called a conflict of interest, unless you believe this article is being edited by one-time characters from The Simpsons, or editors similarly invested. These might (and I haven't checked) be single-purpose accounts—the most I would infer from that would be a better-than-average knowledge of The Simpsons, and a lack of perspective (relative to the rest of Wikipedia). (The suspicious, however, might check for new User:Del arte sock puppets.) / edg ☺ ☭ 11:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An alternate name of this list is List of episodes with one-time characters, which illustrates its triviality. Every one-time character that isn't non-notable to begin with, can (and usually is already) covered in the episode lists and the episode article without any loss of information. Navigation can be solved via redirects in categories, if need be, although that just shifts the triviality from a visibible to a less prominent place. No other show would get away with a one-off character list, and arguments like "it's popular" and "it's essential for navigation" would be ignored in a heartbeat. Let's stop playing favorites. – sgeureka t•c 08:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scorpion and DGG. "One-time character" does not mean "minor" or "trivial" character; many of these played significant roles in the one episode they were part of. There is not all that much to write about them, but having them merged together in a list which is verifiable along with a brief description is a reasonable way of handling it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think this follows the rules of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, linking characters to episode articles (which, for The Simpsons at least, won't be going away any time soon), and is similar to a chronological list or a discography. I would artice that Simpsons references were once dropped like Bible verse in some discourse, so this article could become WP:USEFUL (not a keep reason) or WP:NOTABLE (keep reason) at any time; however, I could only find one character sufficiently memorable that I knew the name, and the practice of Simpsons-speak seems in decline, so chances this remain trivia. I could be persuaded to !vote Delete, and probably will do so in the 10th AfD nomination. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge with List of guest stars on The Simpsons, which is what the focus should be on anyway. I'm not convinced at all that every bit-part character on any show is inherently worth noting, but there's a decent list screaming to get out of these two which are basically the same damned thing. There should be a single sortable list which has data fields like: Voice actor > Episode number > Episode (wikilinked) > character played (extremely brief description) (citation). Then you get a genuinely useful navigational tool, which can help anyone who's wondering "which episode did Mr T feature in?", as well as a list which explicitly lays out the volume and variety of celebrities that have appeared on the show (a tool in itself). Get rid of the excessive free images and space it out properly in a grid and suddenly we'd be looking at something very different. Someoneanother 11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this article is being single out because of the title. The list is not only sourced but it links to articles that have more references. The article meets the criteria of WP:LIST as an useful information source and navigational tool. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list has been compiled in a way which singles it out. It's largely duplication and focuses on characters which are self-admittedly minor, instead of bolstering the other list which focuses on the celebrities who've been involved in the show (real-world info), which is what landed it with the Guinness World Records title. Although doing it that way from the start would not guarantee that it wouldn't be up for AFD, it would be a lot less objectionable. Someoneanother 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is entirely devoid of sources
Nope, there are 25 reliable sources, which makes it pass WP:V
it's nothing but an indiscriminate list
Please do tell what part of WP:IINFO it is breaking, because I can't find a sentence to support that claim.
crammed with OR
I don't think you actually understand the concept of OR. A one or two sentence bio is not OR. Please read WP:OR.
fails WP:NOT on multiple levels
Again, please cite just one part of WP:NOT it is breaking. I can't find any.
fails WP:WAF
No it doesn't. The bios are kept to a bare minimum and the list includes real world information.
fails WP:N
No it doesn't. It has in fact received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
In the end I would like to say that it seems like the delete side only objects on the basis of the title with comments like one-time means trivial and non-notable. I disagree. If the character is covered by a reliable source then I wouldn't call it non-notable, because somebody else obviously found it notable to write about to begin with. Another thing is that they don't have any policy to back up that claim with. --Maitch (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does it fail WP:IINFO? Well...if it's a list of well over 100 individual items, shouldn't every entry be sourced somehow? (Or if not that, every entry should have at least pass WP:N.) For a list this size, 25 sources isn't enough. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, can you back that statement up by a citation from a Wikipedia guideline. We have to deal with real policies. Not just make up rules to fit our own agenda. --Maitch (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think everyone should read this. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love how you are criticizing people for using arguments that haven't even been used. Nobody other than you has brought up IAR in this discussion. -- Scorpion0422 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The irony is that it is in fact THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL who is ignoring all the rules, since he has yet to demonstrate what policy this list is actually breaking. --Maitch (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Essays are not policy and this one is clearly one you just made up. CTJF83Talk 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everyone should read WP:DOTHISBECAUSEMYESSAYSAYSSO. :P - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This may violate WP:POINT, but I am going to add a reference to every single entry just to shut COMPFUNK2 up. -- Scorpion0422 23:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update Sort of done, the majority of the entries are now referenced. I await your next reason why this page should go. -- Scorpion0422 23:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really think that lists need a specific notability guideline: "Lists related to notable topics which are useful to a significant number of readers for navigating and finding other Wikipedia articles, or which exist to collect a number of subtopics of a notable subject which would otherwise just be stubs, do not need to prove notability of the list itself, but just the notability of the general topic to which the list is related." DHowell (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would, in essence, make lists fundamentally different than any other article in the main namespace. Per WP:STAND, they are not. Stand alone lists are regular articles occupying a regular page in the main namespace, and for this reason they have to obey the same guidelines as the other pages in the main namespace. If you want an unencyclopedic list for the sole purpose of navigation, make a category. ThemFromSpace 06:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:BLP make biographies of living people "fundamentally different than any other article in the main namespace"? Does WP:NFILM make articles about films "fundamentally different than any other article in the main namespace"? WP:STAND doesn't say what you claim it says, it says that lists "are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view." But it says nothing about guidelines, which are "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Lists are one of the occasional exceptions, because their purposes are different than general articles; they often help users find information related to a topic rather than provide the user with an overview of a particular topic, or they provide users with details about a topic that wouldn't fit in the main article on that topic. Categories are often insufficient for these purposes, because they cannot contain annotations or references, and they are limited in how they may be organized. Finally, nothing in my proposed guideline conflicts with the basic content policies of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view; lists would still be subject to those policies. DHowell (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NOTEs usually the killer, but you picked the wrong the show. It has enough sources, and could easily have more. It's definitely not fundamentally OR, and it doesn't fail NOT in my opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, you know what? Everyone needs to calm down. I know essays aren't policy, it says right in the template, "heed [the opinions] or not at your own discretion", doesn't it?
Ctjf83, of course I made it up. That's what an essay is, isn't it?
Maitch, I'm ignoring all the rules? Which ones?
Scorpion, you've been here long enough to know how to be civil. You're adding a source to everything just to shut me up? How is that being civil?

Seriously, is this the way y'all always behave when someone disagrees with you? It seems like y'all are throwing temper tantrums on here! I mentioned WP:COOL before, but now maybe some of you need to take a wikibreak. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't throwing tantrums, we're annoyed because we've been working hard trying to address your concerns and yet you aren't really responding to us, you're basically just saying how everyone needs to be cool and stop using IAR. You're main concern was the lack of sources, and I've added sources. So, in theory, you no longer have a reason to vote delete. -- Scorpion0422 16:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not even the one that nominated it this time. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{RFC [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (6th nomination)] | section=Request for comment !! reason=This debate is really getting heated; I think an admin needs to step in. !! time=16:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)}} This debate is really getting heated; I think an admin needs to step in.

That's going a little overboard isn't it? What exactly is an admin going to do? What is going on is we've argued down all of your points, which is why you have yet to respond to any of them, and in desperation, you're trying to get help. -- Scorpion0422 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why won't you calm down? I did make make points; either you're overlooking them or you just don't care. The reason why I'm asking an admin to step in is because this now seems more like a competition than an actual discussion. And in case you missed it, I didn't nominate this for deletion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you over-reacting a little? The only one who is freaking out is you. How does it seem like a competition? You haven't answered several of Maitch's questions, like where is the policy that says "For a list this size, 25 sources isn't enough." -- Scorpion0422
True, there may not be a guideline that explicitly says that, but taking a look at WP:LIST#Listed items and WP:DIRECTORY explains what I'm talking about. And as far as being the only one freaking out, don't you remember when you said this? If anything, I feel like I'm being ganged up on just because I have an opposing view, which, as I stated before, is not being civil. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I feel mistreated by you. I keep repeating that this list is not breaking any policies. It passes WP:V, it passes WP:N, it complies with WP:WAF and WP:NOT does not mention anything about one-off equals indiscrimate trivia. Instead of discussing policy you're claiming that I invoke IAR, which I have never done and dismiss me as a fanboy. Writing an essay with the sole purpose of targeting certain editors in a certain discussion, that states that we all cite IAR, which is untrue, would I consider to be uncivil. Also, it can never be considered uncivil to add sources to an article. --Maitch (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you don't understand the point of essays, but...even though they're not policy, you still have to source them. And what better way to source it than base it on a current debate? And when did I specifically say that you use WP:IAR? The only reason I brought up IAR at all is because that's what happened in the previous debate. Also, I think you're forgetting when you accused me of breaking all the rules. Sounds like you can dish it out but you can't take it.
Anyway, I'm stepping away from this debate because frankly, it's getting a little too childish. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per sgeureka. Fails WP:NOT#INFO and easily covered in the present episode articles. I'd be more willing to reconsider if someone brought up reception or development information on the series one-shot characters as a whole, but I can't for the life of me see why we have something like this. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go again. Let's examine WP:NOT#INFO:
    1. Is it a plot summary?
    No, it is not. It contains real world information.
    2. Is it a lyrics database?
    No
    3. Is it statistics?
    No
    4. Is it a news report?
    No
    In conclusion there is nothing in WP:NOT#INFO which fails this article. One-off = indiscrimate is a personal opinion, which you are entitled to have, but it not based on policy. --Maitch (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list of minor characters for a popular series is often seen, so why not one for one time characters? Notice how many times this has been up for deletion before hand? I don't see any policy the list violates by existing, thus there is no reason for anyone to be able to delete it. Dream Focus 04:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Making profiles od one-time characters is equivalent to rewrite the part of the plot of an episode. This is giving to much weight to a specific element of the plot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really, most of these characters were involved in the main plot of the episode in some way. It's not like this page contains very brief characters Pops Freshenmeyer, Handsome Pete or Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo. -- Scorpion0422 14:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no-one has made a valid argument to delete. The nom makes various statements which are manifestly false (no references, indiscriminate - a list of characters who appeared once in a series is hardly indiscriminate) and others say, incorrectly, that a list can only survive if every listed element is notable by itself. Someone else says 'make a category' (a category of redirects would certainly be deleted). This list indexes in one place a host of interesting material - people who are not interested in it should and will go speedily to a page that does interest them (or start afds, I suppose). It's simply false to claim that the same info spead over around 200 articles would be an adequate substitute. Occuli (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful list, the characters are significant and the page has some good referencing. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources to make the list notable, and the characters' appearances are notable when placed all in one article. Timmeh! 21:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. A lsit of cameo appearances, however interesting, is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia, I'm afraid.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jones (politician)[edit]

Andrew Jones (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One of many articles that has crept into Wikipedia on British prospective parliamentary candidates. WP:POLITICIAN does not attribute notability to candidates, election at local level is not notable, and there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". In this case, chairing the Bow Group may be notable - bringing for discussion. I42 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of current notability. If he is elected, then he should have an article. Warofdreams talk 02:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-elected candidates can be notable, but not in this case. If/When elected, the article can be recreated. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn DGG (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masanori Hirasawa[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as notability cannot be proved. I have conducted a search of Google and Google Scholar, and while I can find mentions of Masanori Hirasawa, I cannot find something that conclusively proves notability. This is a similar situation to Shohei Suzuki (AfD), a co-discoverer of asteroids, whose article was deleted for similar reasons. The two articles were identical. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a note, this article has been flagged for rescue by User:Pepsi2786. While I currently support deletion due to my inability to find any sources to verify notability, a large reason why I went ahead with this AfD rather than allowing this article to continue to languish was that both Shohei Suzuki (AfD) (a most wanted but deleted article) and Masanori Hirasawa appear to be notable, but notability cannot be proven in either case, at least based on my search. I hope that if there ARE such sources, they will bubble up during this AfD, and I will be able to withdraw this nomination, and re-create or assist in the recreation of Shohei Suzuki (AfD). However, as it stands now, this article should be deleted for failing to meet notability requirements. If you have sources, please provide them. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn: User:Pepsi2786 has added sources that at least prove that the individual discovered the asteroids he discovered. I am not here to argue whether or not a discoverer of a minor planet is notable, so the presence of coverage indicating the discoveries occurred is sufficient for me. Therefore, I am withdrawing my nomination.Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme music[edit]

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

As an adjective coupled with a noun, extreme music is a common enough expression. So too are good music, mild music, and stupid music. I was not able to find anything that suggests extreme music is anything more than just an expression that different writers use to refer to different things in different context. There are three external links provided in the article. The first two are sites that are devoted to extreme metal music. They do not cover avant-garde jazz, new complexity, breakcore, noise rock or any of the other non-metal music that this article includes as "extreme". The third external link is a "Malaysian Independent Music Portal" and has little relevance to this article, let alone any reliability. We already have an article on extreme metal, an umbrella genre that has been the subject of published academic books. The same cannot be said of this "extreme music". This article is nothing more than original research. As far as I could tell by browsing through the article's history, there has never been a single citation to any source. It has been nearly two years since someone slapped a template asking for sources but none has been provided. --Bardin (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stigers[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. The page asserts notability, but does not establish notability. No evidence that this person has been the subject of multiple independant biographies. Delete TheRingess (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adios EP[edit]

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

nn album Oo7565 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analytic solutions[edit]

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

Non notable company Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make commenters read your mind and please explain why you think something is not notable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11 as blatant advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Blatant advertising: They are considered thought leaders in the optimal design ... Oonh, it's "optimal" we are now, are we? ... differentiates itself primarily through its dual-expertise positioning. Its analyst-developers are experienced business and financial analysts who are also experts ... Truly, they must be an army of generals. Absolutely no importance shown: the "reference" given is to an article written by company personnel, not about the business itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 13:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Nestler[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E. It's more about a scandal than the actual person. Smitty (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like this is a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. The subject is only notable for one event (getting the restraining order), which received a small flurry of publicity in Dec 2005 and Jan 2006. I did find one other passing mention to it in 2007 in a Forbes article on frivolous court cases. So, this wouldn't qualify for an article on the event instead of the person either, per WP:NOT#NEWS. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Colleen Nestler v. David Letterman. The woman involved is not notable, but the case itself is very notable, and is cited in both popular news as well as legal publications. Owen× ☎ 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. The article makes clear that the central event is notable, 3d party coverage, etc. The only question is whether the main article should be about the person or the case, with the other as a redirect. That should be discusswed on the article talk page, not here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . As an article on her, it is an obvious violation of BLP. She is not notable, merely unfortunate. DGG (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Colleen Nestler v. David Letterman for the reasons given by owenxDave (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article on the person per WP:BLP1E, and do not create an article on the event per WP:NOT#NEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename and edit per above logic from Nestler, Wolfowitz. Dispute is clearly notable especially the commentary about it. Nestler less so. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename. I'd say "rename" at minimum per BLP1E, but the dispute seems so trivial - and of no lasting significance or legal precedent - that I'd prefer deletion. WP:NOT a tabloid. The incident is so trivial it isn't even mentioned in David Letterman. Rd232 talk 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The story was actually mentioned in the David Letterman article for most of its life, until in October 2007 a well-intentioned but--in my opinion--misguided group of editors decided to remove most non-TV related facts about him, and about other TV personalities, as "trivia". In any case, the notability of this case has nothing to do with Ms. Nestler or Mr. Letterman. It was a watershed event in US domestic violence law. The widespread and long-lasting coverage by media alone should place it above the WP:NOT#NEWS criterion, and as I mentioned above, BLP1E doesn't apply as this article is about a court case, not the person after which this article was incorrectly named. Owen× ☎ 15:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's been out of the Letterman article for 18 months. What evidence is there that "It was a watershed event in US domestic violence law."? Rd232 talk 17:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. db author speedy --GedUK  19:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borderwars[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Speedy declined. No references can be found. The band's label ("Black Hawk Label Records") cannot be found. A closely related "Black Hawk Records" CAN be found, but was a jazz label in the 50s, not a thrash metal label. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article's author (Transambytrial (talk · contribs)) has requested a {{db-author}} deletion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of War (graphic novel)[edit]

The Art of War (graphic novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about an unpublished graphic novel, input by the author's agent and de-PRODded by the author himself. Publication date 2010. Fails WP:BK#Not yet published books; a search does not suggest the kind of interest that could justify an exception. Wikipedia should not be used for promotion. Delete. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Roman). JohnCD (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kraft[edit]

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

Nominated by Sacul72 with reason: "He has not played for a proffesional team yet." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to reread this paragraph where it clearly is stated that "20 professional teams compete" in 3rd Liga. Although said correction was made -after- your comment, the fact remains that the 3rd Liga is fully pro. Madcynic (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, In that sense I suppose he is considered to be a pro then. Sacul72 (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#A3 (No substantiative content). Further more, the title is inadiquate, as it has no context toward the subject. — Edokter • Talk • 11:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Special 2009[edit]

Christmas Special 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Purely speculation and rumors about a Doctor Who Christmas special. See WP:CRYSTAL. Radiant chains (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as well as the current redirect, there's also an ongoing discussion here. Maccy69 (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I'm sure that once there is any reliable information about it, 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) will be created and filled with it. No need for a placeholder with speculation. SoWhy 07:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doctor Who is not the only show with a Christmas Special, so the title is wholly inappropriate, especially since we have a properly title place to put any non-speculation info already. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Valerian456 Hush, Rush 09:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spokeo[edit]

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

This article is probably just spam, but I thought it was worth more than a speedy delete - they company is just another non-notable search engine, but they do have a small measure of notoriety for they unethical behaviour and mass spamming (http://www.google.com/search?q=spokeo+spam). Unfortunately their spamming extends to Wikipedia; pretty much the entire article is written by Spokeo registered IPs or accounts created just for this article, and includes careful citations to a previous version of their product (the current version just attempts to harvest people's address books, using positive reviews of the previous version as a kind of bait-and-switch). If there is anything worth saving here, I think a ground-up rewrite would be required. akaDruid (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability established via significant to exclusive coverage in multiple reliable sources: Newsweek, PC World, Wall Street Journal, CNet, TechCrunch. These sources are already cited in the article. To be honest, I'm not sure why this was even nominated, given that it so easily passes WP:N. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by LinguistAtLarge, notability is clearly established. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not every source listed in the article is equally reliable but between those and the ones listed by Lnguist, there are plenty to satisfy the criteria. _ Mgm|(talk) 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sources listed above appear to assert notability; but the result is an article is misleading, if not deceitful. The site has substantially changed since those sources were written. Also the article is being maintained by the company itself to create a positive image for a frankly slimy business model. akaDruid (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The answer to that would be to edit the article and make it more accurate. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I started this article back in 2006. A lot of things have changed since then, and some information is indeed outdated. Many people have contributed to the original entry as well, so the article is more comprehensive yet not as cohesive as before. Due to these reasons, I rewrote and reorganized the entire article into distinct topical sections on April 9, 2009 hoping to improve the article content quality. I did not change or delete the original information; rather, I added new information and references to make the article more informative. Moreover, I did try to keep the content objective and highlight all the privacy controversies surrounding Spokeo in the Content Privacy section. If people think that the article is not as objective as it should be, please feel free to add more information or edit it just as many others have done before. man4prez (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The International Association of Media and History[edit]

The International Association of Media and History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy, non notable organisation Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm getting some hits and (trivial) mentions by searching "International Association of Media and History" and "IAMHIST". I suspect that someone closer to the field could come up with some (perhaps offline) sources to establish notability, as this seems to be a rather influential organization that publishes a quarterly journal, at least one book and hosts an annual international conference. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with haste as the organization is most definitely notable, being quoted in multile books and publications, and being instrumental in determining the future of television as a medium. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but try to find some more references; it's relatively borderline. Just possibly, combine with the journal. DGG (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
some material seems to have just been added, & I think its enough to be no longer borderline. DGG (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MichaelQSchmidt who once more proved that WP:BEFORE should be heeded before nominating an article and expanded the article with multiple reliable sources. An organisation with half a dozen sources covering it, notable members and publishing notable journals and books? I'd say they are notable. SoWhy 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not entirely sure you are assuming good faith by suggesting I didn't read WP:BEFORE before nominating. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not suggesting that you did not read it, I am suggesting that you did not heed it. While I assume good faith (and one could very easily claim that you don't by implying that I don't), I think WP:BEFORE is pretty clear that problems such as missing notability concerns should be noted using tags like {{notability}} before bringing it to deletion. I can and will not assume that you were just too "lazy" to do the improvement that MichaelQSchmidt has proven possible above or that you have made no attempt to fix the article through editing. That would indeed be an assumption of bad faith. But it's no assumption of bad faith to say that you did not heed WP:BEFORE, for example the "tag the article for its problems first"-part; the article history is proof that you didn't (because your only edits to the article where the speedy and the AFD tags). Regards SoWhy 00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This appears to be a significant academic society, publihsing an academic journal. If appearacnes are correct it is clearly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. It seems to be a notable organization. http://www.amazon.com/Historian-Television-History/dp/1860205860 There is a book published about it. Dream Focus 12:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Comment: It's a notable organization. If the name is spelled correctly, you will find it in Wikipedia. (July 2007: International Association for Media and History.) --Kolja21 (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2011 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium Rave[edit]

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

Declined speedy, non notable music recording. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 13:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic black metal[edit]

Melodic black metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essentially original research. Article has been tagged for references since 2006, and OR since 2007. The term is obviously in use (as a swift Google amply demonstrates) but the word "melodic" is almost exclusively being used as an adjective qualifying "black metal"; there is no single source that I can see (barring a couple of self-published essays on webzines or blogs) that states explicitly that this exists as a genre. What we currently have is an entirely OR characteristics section (that I have been unable to verify anywhere) and a rather crufty, POV list of notable acts that attracts genre warriors. At best, all that can be said about melodic black metal is that it is black metal that is somewhat melodic, which is rubbish even as a dicdef. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Total OR. Yet another fairy tale music genre on Wikipedia. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Symphonic black metal. That's what all those symphonic stuff are for: to provide the melody. --Bardin (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, I think a simple delete will suffice. If there are no sources then why claim symphonic black metal as the best redirect? This is WP:OR in itself. FireCrystal (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm in agreement with FireCrystal... there's no source stating that melodic black metal and symphonic black metal are synonyms. If made into a redirect it should be to the main black metal article. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Redirect to black metal instead. I agree there's nothing worth merging from this article. --Bardin (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to black metal instead. FireCrystal (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In all fairness, I considered merging first but couldn't see anything to merge. I'm not convinced it even deserves a mention in the main article; if this gets deleted, so should the subsection in black metal. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Symphonic black metal per Bardin. I do not see sufficient differentiation between the genres to merit separate articles and there is no question this article is a OR hive. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this isn't verified by anything, and it ain't symphonic black metal either (no orchestral instrumentation, for instance). There is nothing worth merging; the entire article is OR. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no reliable independent sources, WP:OR. JamesBurns (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:MADEUP (about to find out if "madeup" is a redirect yet).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial emblem of Turkey[edit]

Unofficial emblem of Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is an attempt to define an official take on state symbols of Turkey which are themselves unofficial. An edit war has been taking place on the Turkey article concerning the "official" symbol of Turkey, and the existence of this article, which is itself the target of an edit war, exists almost solely to fuel the edit war over on the Turkey article. The article itself has been in existence for a long time, with Coat of arms of Turkey and Emblem of Turkey redirecting here. However, the fact that there appears to be no consensus on what the actual topic of the article is, and that it is being used to sustain a senseless edit war leads me to believe the article should be deleted. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the main article on Turkey. There's enough referenced information to be of interest but not enough for its own article with a problematic title. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there have only been 12 edits before you prodded it all of this year. That can hardly be characterized as a major edit war. Almost every edit last year was by bots. Where is this edit war that you speak of? It's not apparent from the article history that there was ever an edit war on this article. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close nomination The right course of action to stop an edit war is to penalize the participants, not to delete WP content. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The edit war is on the Turkey article, and to some extent the Ottoman Empire page as well. The fact that the existence of the subject of this article can't even be agreed upon, and that the argument is largely played out at the Turkey article causes more trouble than it is worth. Useful content can just be merged into the Turkey article. It strikes me that "unofficial" anything shouldn't escape the trivia section of a main article. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that an edit war occurs on another article should not be used as an excuse to delete an article where no edit war has occurred. If it were really controversial, there would have been an edit war on this article, since the editor would modify this article to conform to their positions. This has not occurred. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems notable and noteworthy and similar articles exist for other countries. I'm confused as to what the edit war on Turkey has to do with thin nomination. The information in the article in question seems, at a glance, to be well written and well sourced.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D. Gift[edit]

D. Gift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although this (stub) article appears to be well-written, and he does have a website, the only Google hits I could find on this person at all are from message boards that lead back to Wikipedia. In addition, his debut album (whose article was deleted itself) was apparently supposed to have been released in December 2007 but never was, and this article hasn't been touched at all since September 2007. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 13:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities producing the most NBA players[edit]

List of cities producing the most NBA players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List that easily falls under WP:NOT#INFO, having basketball players coming out of a certain city is unmaintainable, and doesn't really make either the player or the city notable because of that, violates WP:LISTCRUFT, especially 1, 2, 3, and 8 Delete Secret account 13:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 13:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the list is eminently maintainable - such information is consistently available for NBA players on statistical databases and can easily be added to as new players make NBA debuts. matt91486 (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying that this list isn't maintainable or avaliable, it's just too narrow of a list, we don't have List of politcians by city for a reason. Even a category would be deleted as WP:OVERCAT, why should an article stay. Secret account 19:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--this strikes me as pure listcruft. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete calculating such a list based on existing stats would constitute original research and the city someone lives in has no direct link to their basketball skills. I'd support a list of basketball teams or basketball academies producing the most NBA players, because those are actually linked. - Mgm|(talk) 08:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a mammoth wall of text with no real significance. Hazir (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Areschart[edit]

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

Non-notable chart. A few blogspot references, but most of the references are from Wikis and Wikipedia mirrors. Created by the "Latin Music Academy Of America", an organization that I can find no references to at all. Claims to be based on the United World Chart, which is another chart that has been deleted from Wikipedia. —Kww(talk) 13:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Mary Auld[edit]

Susan Mary Auld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO; the only information I can find on this person is from other unsourced wikis. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 12:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Infromation gathered from obituary released by family members: Pioneering naval architect Susan Auld dies at 87 AP Worldstream; March 14, 2002Aunty Helen (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12.. Source. Regards SoWhy 13:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panch. Ramalingam[edit]

Panch. Ramalingam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Decline speedy. But pure hoax. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 12:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional monkeys[edit]

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

Most monkeys in this list do not have their own article. This list has many entries that are little more than "Unnamed monkey - appears in an episode of show x" or "Some monkey - seen at one point in a video game". We have a category for notable fictional monkeys, which has far fewer items than this list article. See Category:Fictional monkeys. Radiant chains (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as listcruft. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 12:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to argue that other stuff exists, but we do have several other "list of fictional [insert animal here]"s. This one can probably be cleaned up and sourced, with all of the "untitled"s removed, but I'm not certain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above Niteshift36 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article can serve as a navigational aid. The unnamed and non-relevant monkeys can be removed from the list by editing. Their existence has no bearing on the inclusion of monkeys like Mojo Jojo and Dial M for Monkey. - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They dont need their own article. They just have to be prominent in notable works, which not quite all of them are. Even if one thought they did need an article there are about forty here with their own article, which is surely enough to support a list. My guess is that perhaps another 10 or so could be reasonably written. DGG (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A category doesn't cut it with this type of list. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a category is merely a navigational tool, it is not to be used to replace content. And further, Gorillas in comics (at least) is very notable, and has been discussed in quite a few secondary sources. It looks to me that the several lists of fictional simians have merely been split due to WP:SIZE. - jc37 18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer vision conferences[edit]

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

A list of external links to conferences held in various places and locations with no evidence whatsoever that these conferences are notable. Some appear to be one type of conference held in rotating locations annually, I'm not certain that provides notability. I don't think we're meant to be a directory of various conferences held - if the history of the conference is notable it could be on its own page - which I'm not sure exists. Thoughts? StarM 12:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find them useful nonetheless --Oan3 (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3 (blatant hoaxes) Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Maa Television[edit]

Durga Maa Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nomination on behalf of JasminSingh (talk · contribs) as requested here. Appears to be yet more efforts from a serial hoaxer (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durga Maa Telefilms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharan Kapoor). The following related pages have been nominated for the same reason:

Atoot Bandhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aradhana (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ab To Aaja Mere Sajana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saat Pheron Ke Saat Vachan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gr1st (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nawar Faraj[edit]

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

non-notable football player; fails WP:ATHLETE. the "519 Footballerz" are certainly not notable, "Wayne State Men's Soccer Club" is almost certainly not notable. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kangeyan[edit]

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

Rumour-based article about a future film. The article says that shooting started in 2006 and was then abandoned, so technically it may escape WP:NFF; but "the movie starts early 2010", the director is "still waiting to choose his heroine" and the scanty information is all "sources say that..." A search with the name of the star does not find any reliable source, only blogs and forums. Fails WP:CRYSTAL - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fan forum, and there is no reliable source yet on which to base an article. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World's End[edit]

The World's End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails future films notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. A redirect will be made to Neurotypical as suggested. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 10:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotypicalism[edit]

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

An almost complete copy of Aspergers Syndrome that purports to describe neurotypicalism; literally the normal mental state for a human being. Ignoring the copy issue for a second, this isn't really going to be an appropriate page; you don't have causes of neurtypicalism, mechanisms, screening, diagnosis, management and certainly not history (unless some religious user wants to point him in the direction of say, Genesis?) Ironholds (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Causes of NTism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • You might want to review Neurotypical (AfD discussion) and its talk page, too.

    The problem here is one of set complements. A "neurotypical" person is anyone who is not on the Autism spectrum (no matter what other neurological problems they may have). It's the word used by those "on the spectrum" to describe people who are not. Trying to construct a syndrome out of this is like trying to have an article on non-French people. This is simply the "them" part of an "us and them" distinction. Even though there are plenty of sources documenting the appellation, there are no sources to support any of this article, because no source makes the leap from nickname to condition.

    There is a syndrome here. But it is, unfortunately, a syndrome that affects Wikipedia editors, and nothing to do with autism. Sufferers want to make the world, and human knowledge, "fair" and "balanced" by making up things to counter perceived unfairness and imbalance in the world, and writing about them in Wikipedia in order to redress the balance in some way — in order to "add the missing bits" that should be human knowledge, but aren't. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Human knowledge is unfair, uneven, incomplete, and inconsistent. Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, we document it just as it is. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(not sure if this is the right place sorry)

"Copy" of Aspergers syndrome, yes, ive admitted to using the code of an exsisting page as a template because my wikipedia experience is limited, the data contained in this copy has been altered and only bares resemblence to its "parent" article in the area's it is true to.

  • causes: simular to aspergers actually, its theorised as enviromental/genetic however, there's very little actual evidence of the "causes" of how the "normal" human brain is, there is a reason for the neurotypical brain to be as it is, just like there is for the atypical neurology to be as it is, if they find out in more detail i'll be sure to update my entry.
  • mechanisms: again simular to aspergers in some instances, however differing in others

(accounted for in the article) the information on the mechanisms of the neurotypical brain is as limited as the information on the atypical brain, again should this change i will be sure to update the relevant entry (will you be proposing to delete the Aspergers Syndrome article as the same issues apply to both articles?). i will of course be looking at ways to improve the article.

  • screening: the diagnostic criteria for Neurotypicalism doesnt exsist, simply because it would be largely pointless, over 85% of the GLOBAL population is NT, that it doesnt exsist yet, doesn't mean it shouldnt, to have a Neutral veiw wikipedia -must- contain information on "all parties", its not wikipedia's fault that majourity NT health professionals have'nt taken it beyond the "whats different to normal" approach and included "whats 'normal'".
  • History: should there come a time it can be shown when the neurological arrangement of the NT occured i will gladly update the article, i'll also be interested to know of when atypical neurologies actually came about, genesis-era is quite possibly one answer however evidence for that is ambiqious.
  • diagnosis: simular to screening really
  • management: I dont really think i need to spell out the destructive traits of NT's, because what occurs in most peoples daily life is evidence of this, the same techniques used for other disorders have been shown to function just as well for a very wide spectrum of issues.

in short, yes it'll look like a copy of Aspergers, because there is simularity between the two neurologies, yes it will have roughly the same depth and amount of information as its parent article, because that's the information that's there (also a slight lack because where's the interest in studying "normal?"), it is a serious article and its also one that's trying to remain within Wikipedia's philosophy, that because it covers a pathology that is "common" and so largely ignored, is beyond the authors control.

do raise anyother points with the actual exsisting contents if you please (from an impartial position) i am interested in improving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeme2 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~Uncle G: valid points we're it not that the term "Neurotypical" -does not- apply to those "not on the autistic spectrum", since its adoption by the larger medical/scientific community it has come to its literal meaning, Neurotypical, a person with -any- mental condition, I.E Bipolar, is no longer "NT" by very definition (this information is on the wikipedia page Neurotypical), the article is not a piece of "original research", because as mentioned, its been seen before, the concept of Neurotypicalism isnt mine and research into Neurotypicalism is the mainstay of the field of psychology. your right human knowledge is unfair and uneven, in a vast number of things *shrugs* it happens and seemingly will persist, wikipedia is not a soapbox or a way to "redress" the none-exsistent balance, but apparently its a place for neutral information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeme2 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect—aside from obvious original research, undue weight to the perspective of non-normal people, plagiarism of another article, and being utter nonsense, this article is perfectly fine. Sentences like "Neurotypicalism is one of the pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), which are a spectrum of psychological conditions that are characterized by abnormalities of social interaction and communication that pervade the individual's functioning, and by restricted and normally repetitive but often short-term interests and behavior" are obviously false, and should not be on Wikipedia! If I did not respect the AfD process, I would delete this out of line. Here's hoping that the snowball clause or something else will let us delete this before the AfD is scheduled to end. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC), 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • read the [article] and have a think about the symptoms, ive yet to meet anyone "NT" who has not had difficultly using and understanding their own language, difficulty relating to people, I know plenty of normal people who get hung up on what people think of them so "fudge" their relationships in a variety of ways, "unusual play" doesnt need any explanation when you really think about somethings normal people play with, mild difficulty with changes in routine, definitely thousands are late for work each day especially when thier rota changes, sometimes it doesnt even need change to do that, repeative behaviours, plenty of normal people i know repeat sometimes unhealthly the same harmful behaviours over and over. you might not -like- it, but im afraid there's no lie here, ive already covered the "plagarism" accusation, yes, not being confident in wiki script i used another page as a template instead of making a random mess (maybe advise others to use templates) and i cant do anything about the simularities that -do- exsist between neurologies/neurological conditions.Freeme2 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Neurotypical.

    With all due respect for Uncle G's very cogent points, the purpose of the AfD process is to determine whether this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia. "Neurotypicalism" is the kind of word that people would be likely to look up in an encyclopaedia. Therefore, it should not be a redlink, which means deletion is inappropriate.

    I do have a certain amount of sympathy for autistic people, who live with a difficult condition, and I respect the motive behind creating this article. Perhaps there could be room within Neurotypical for a subheading called something like "Perception of neurotypicalism among autistic people".

    But I do agree with Uncle G's case insofar as it shows that this content can't remain under this heading.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree entirely, and have modified my comment to reflect that. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no disagreement with a redirect, if you're happy that people really will be searching for this title. My deletion opinion was based upon trying to look this up using Google Books and Google Scholar, and finding no occurrences of the word whatsoever. (I then went on to try variations, including "neurotypical", which led to reading what sources actually said, which led to what I wrote above.) Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I won't say that people will be searching for this title. My position is that I think it's at least plausible that someone might.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • What a Google Web search turns up seems to support that. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Im very sure fifty years ago, "neurotypical"/"autistic", we're -not- words in the dictionary, today they are, advancement only comes with change, no you wont right now find "Neurotypicalism" in the dictionary, because ironically, even with what we all know looking around and seeing how other normal people are (in some cases) its -uncomfortable- to consider the normal neurology (inspite of histories and our own individual personal evidence on the matter) as fitting into the category of a disorder, it does fit, im sure those who came up with PDD-NOS didnt even give consideration that it would, but it does. Freeme2 (talk)
          • It's not that I didn't find it in the dictionary. It's that I didn't find it in use at all. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a joke; it does not belong on Wikipedia. Stickinsect2 (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am infact, dead serious, have a read of it again, but from an "outsider" perspective, forget that you are "NT" or any other label you ascribe and honestly and truely ask yourself, does whats in the article actual apply to and in many cases define normal people you know. Freeme2 (talk)
      • That's not the point at issue here. The point at issue is whether this is a recognized, documented, acknowledged syndrome that is part of the general corpus of human knowledge, or whether it is an invention that has not been recognized, documented, and acknowledged, and that is not a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Neurotypical, which is by far the more widely-used term. The concept of neurotypicality is unquestionably notable - the discussion of it as a positively defined mental condition, though, is a marginal position and arguably novel. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • cant argue with the perception of this being a "fringe theory" (because perception is perception), but then so would ASD and a few other things be "fringe theory" there is a -much- larger body of evidence(history and most people daily experiences) for Neurotypicalism than there is for ASDs, even though the former is something only recently coming to be recognised (wood for the tree's syndrome perhaps). Freeme2 (talk)
  • Delete. An obvious joke, and not an original one: the idea of mocking the mainstream in this way has been circling around the Internet for years. Eubulides (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • sadly, might be hard to accept, but i -am- serious here and if any of you would like to help me improve the language of the article i would be quite grateful. Freeme2 (talk)
  • Some jokes are serious jokes; but they are still jokes. Wikipedia is not the right place for joke articles that lack reliable sources and which (if taken seriously) are original research. Eubulides (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Neurotypical, omitting to merge the joke. The term is notable enough to admit encyclopedic discussion in its own article outside of Autism rights movement or Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typcial or wherever. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Neurotypical, and sooner is better than later. The current content is completely unsupportable here, and Wikipedia is not best served by letting this biased nonsense block a perfectly useful redirect for a week's worth of debate. The author may wish to "transwiki" the joke to Uncyclopedia. Causes of NTism may actually qualify for speedy deletion as a hoax. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • unfortunately, again not a joke, this is what'll happen if you actually detach, sit back and examine "normal" people, its not nice to know there are enough flaws in the NT to have a person classed as PDD-NOS but, i think if you've read the comments above, you've come to realise, this isnt a joke and is -far- from actually biased (skipping self-examination because its uncomfortable, is biased, applying the same weight and measure to oneself that one applies to all others, is not biased). Freeme2 (talk)
  • Delete and/or redirect to Neurotypical per WP:OR and WP:NEO. I think it as a neologism. Junk Police (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • appears to be a Neologism, sadly its not, appeared as early as [16] 2001 coined (it seems) by william rogers in an article for O.A.S.I.S(gods one day i'll learn these wiki tags), it is in common use, ask a psychologist, ask someone "on the spectrum", it is a "specialised" term, much like Pathology is (ask most people, they may have heard it, but i doubt many will be able to tell you what it means). Freeme2 (talk)
    • by the by, thankyou for -actually- discussing this rather than taking arbitrary action against an article that possibly makes you uncomfortable. Freeme2 (talk)
  • Redirect to Neurotypical, which is an okay article. Looie496 (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make a redirect the redirect would be useful, to a proper article.. Delete first, because what';s here is a mixture of plagiarism, and unsupported POV. Advocacy for non-neurotypicals and respect for them does not require writing nonsense. DGG (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make a redirect, per DGG. Delete Causes of NTism, no redirect, as not a probable search term. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Neurotypical as a plausible search term. This is what I think of when Uncle G talks about "cargo cult article writing": an article which has all the appearances of an encylopedia article but none of the substance. This article, if it were true, might explain why there is so much conflict on Wikipedia (and in the rest of the world), but unfortunately this is just a parody of the Asperger's syndrome article. I am unsure whether the author actually intended it as a joke (and the apparently serious responses here are just a continuation of the joke on us), or actually thinks this is a serious attempt at an encyclopedia article, but either way, it is original research because none of the cited references have anything to say about "neurotypicalism", "neurotypical disorder" or "neurotypical syndrome". Rather, this article is based on personal observations of various aspects of human behavior from the apparent perspective of someone with Asperger's, and is advancing the contentious position that such "typical" behavior constitutes a "syndrome" or "disorder" (complete with citing the ICD codes which essentially mean "miscellaneous autism-like disorders"). There is, however, an obvious "source" for an article like this: The website of the Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical, a parody website which actually does get some significant coverage in reliable sources: news, books, scholar. Something about this website as an example of the documented Asperger persepective on "neurotypicals" might be worth a paragraph or so in the Neurotypical article. DHowell (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Neurotypical acceptable, author was unaware terminology used must be explicitly stated in bodies of citied reference to qualify as encyclopaedic in nature and not violate "original research" terms, if article was parody/humour, it would have actually been funny and much more in line with DHowell's stated "sources" (would have been more efficient to copy the parody direct from website, however that would have been an inconsiderate waste of wikipedia resources), was not and is not joke or parody, even though in some circles it is "joked about", and yes DHowell, maybe the article actually does explain why "there is so much conflict on Wikipedia (and in the rest of the world)" as unsettling as such an article is. Freeme2 (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is not primarily that it uses a term not explicitly stated in the cited references (which is a problem in and of itself, but by itself would be fixable); the problem is it describes a concept not even touched on by the cited references. It would be as if I wrote an article on Asperger's syndrome based on biographies of people who I personally think have Asperger's, though I have no reliable sources which describe them as such. You don't, for example, have any source that says that body dysmorphic disorder has any correlation at all with being "neurotypical". How do you know that such disorders don't occur in those with Asperger's to a proportionate extent? (By the way, though parody is often intended to be humorous, it is not necessarily so; I could rewrite the lyrics of a famous song to memorialize a friend who passed away, and although quite serious in intent, it would still be "parody". See parody music.) DHowell (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comparison flawed, biographical works are primary/secondary source materials and -very- limited in scope, most (albeit limited) texts that focus on how a "normal" person is/works (few and far between, it is mostly left up to the individual to observe rather than analysed and recorded) do cover what is mentioned in the article, RE:BDD (minor) it is likely that BDD of varying degrees occurs in those with aspergers as well as Neurotypicals, however as cited, the degree of "normal" people suffering with mild/borderline BDD in the US is about 57%, conversely animals display no signs (self-mutilation/depression) of any degree of BDD at all, leading to the conclusion that BDD is a vulnerability of the NT and other Neurologies (human), yet again, contemplation by any individual will highlight exactly how prevalent minor BDD is in Neurotypical people (unaware "parody" was a broad term for plagiarism that is often but not necessarily humourus, thankyou for the update) Freeme2 (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • "Mostly left up to the individual to observe" and "contemplation by any individual" is what makes this original research, especially in cases where mutliple individuals will not necessarily make the same observations. And when citing studies which say nothing about whether any of their subjects have autism or Asperger's or any other condition, one cannot make the conclusion that they are about "neurotypical" or "normal" people. If you had a reliable study which actually documented a correlaton (negative or positive) between Asperger's and any other disorder, you might actually have something to write about, though I would still say it belongs in the articles about the specific conditions documented, and not in an article about "neurotypicals" unless that term somehow found its way into the actual study. One could, based on similar "individual observation and contemplation", write an article about "Y chromosone disorder", describing disorders prevalent among males, or "melanin deficiency disorder", describing disorders prevalent among white people; I hope I don't have to explain to you why such articles would be unsuitable for Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disappointed but unsurprised ( subject too often joked over + new user + frequent idiocy in others) about (at points borderline insultive) assumptions made regarding myself and the article, but aware this is not moderators -actual- intent. Thankyou for your time. Freeme2 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The people commenting here are not "moderators". Some have gained the use of administrator tools, but we are all Wikipedia editors, just as you are. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon contemplation (better/clearer explanation): while "the Sky" is incredibly common knowledge (to the point of being (by mainstream majority) assumed, ignored and taken for granted), even among none-sighted individuals, it still has an article on wikipedia that is "clinical" in nature, that is the spirit and intent with the article on Neurotypicalism (the end result of classification is it actually fitting under PDD-NOS) Aspergers page was used both because a "template" page was needed and because there are vast similarities in the Neurologies (with clinically very minor but by consequence noticeable differences) to the point that even use of FMRI technology has yielded little to no actual data on the "difference", points raised about wikipedia policy on articles still valid though, perhaps one more versed on sources than I could edit or produce a "clinical" article of NTs? Freeme2 (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the point, though. Sources do not make the leap that you are making with this article. Whilst they freely document the fact that people "on the spectrum" call those who are not "neurotypicals", they do not make the conceptual leap from the use of a nickname to the existence of an actual syndrome. Feel free to prove me wrong on this by citing reliable sources that properly document such a syndrome, but when I went and looked for sources myself, right at the start of this discussion, I couldn't find anything beyond "they call us 'neurotypicals'"/"we call them 'neurotypicals'". That isn't documenting a syndrome. It's documenting a name. And it is not permitted at Wikipedia to take things beyond what is already documented as known in the world outside Wikipedia. We aren't here to redress some sort of perceived imbalance, by documenting things that the world ought to know, but actually does not. We may not fabricate a syndrome that the world has not recognized, properly documented, and acknowledged.

      This isn't a medical journal. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, written using a wiki by people who don't have to identify themselves. Wikipedia hasn't the mechanisms to perform primary medical research, based upon case studies, and take it through fact checking and peer review by people with accredited expertise in the field. Medical journals have. Our articles are supposed to be based upon human knowledge that has been through such processes of fact checking, peer review, acknowledgement and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge — outside of Wikipedia, beforehand. That's the route that novel ideas should take. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks to/From User:Freeme2
  • Freeme2, as background to this debate and to help you understand where the other participants are coming from, I think it might help you to examine Wikipedia's position on verifiability, reliable sources and original research.

    The convention here is that if you write something, I can then challenge you by typing {{proveit}}. The site software formats that like this: [citation needed]. The "proof" here is not a formal proof, but a reference to third-party reliable sources that back up what you've said. Any material that is not verifiable from reliable sources can be removed by other editors, which is what is happening here.

    Even if reliable sources could be found, such as an article in an academic journal that discusses neurotypicalism, the matter would then be governed by Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories.

    I'm afraid that I believe the weight of these policies is too great for this article to survive. However, that's not the same as saying Wikipedia should not contain anything about neurotypicalism at all: I rather think it should. All I'm saying is that Wikipedia's coverage of neurotypicalism should be as a subheading under Neurotypical that does not give undue weight to a non-mainstream point of view.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with your final analysis given weight of policies, Advise against adding as subheading under Neurotypical as Neurotypical is a purely and exclusively serious medical/scientific term, where as while "joked" about (in the same way some men "joke" about PMT/PMS), Neurotypicality as another "disorder" is plainly still veiwed by "mainstream" (contrary to global daily incidentally given evidence) as no more or less than "revenge"/"us/them"/"face slap" tactic by non-Neurotypicals, as laudable to desire to put note of the "veiwpoint" of non-nts on wikipedia is, it appears fundemental differences in methords of perception and cognition exsist and will most likely result in the note placed being inaccurate and to a point misleading rather than impartially informative.

Time taken to give explanation of position and policy (some of which i had read) much appreciated.Freeme2 (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and make a redirect per DGG. JohnCD (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would go along per the above discussion with delete and redirect per DGG. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn . by nominator. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!!!Fuck You!!![edit]

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

It says absoulutely nothing, I doubt this is real Raaggio 10:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close AfD as AfD notice has been removed by nom. Also, the AfD is of a vandalised version. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Module Player[edit]

Extended Module Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, unsourced software. Just because software exists does not make it notable. Long lists of features does not make for an encyclopedic topic. Article is completely unsourced except for a link to the projects web page on sourceforge. To keep this article, it needs to address notability with more than just a google search showing hits. Multiple, reliable sources, independent of the subject providing non-trivial mention. Web reviews, blogs, appearance in directories do not count for non-trivial sources. Miami33139 (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find sources other than those with trivial mentions. Radiant chains (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarsembaev, Marat Aldangorovich[edit]

Sarsembaev, Marat Aldangorovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced resume of a non-notable figure. Claims to have "more than 440 scientific works", but gets about 9 hits at WorldCat. He's on the Kazakh electoral commission, but even for the US (our most-covered country), we only have an article for one member of the Federal Election Commission (and it's not much of an article). Anyway, since he's unelected, and his life isn't covered by third-party sources, he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Biruitorul Talk 04:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worldcat is mostly restricted to libraries in the US. It's not surprising works from someone in Kazachstan isn't listed much. ALso, why search for scientific works in regular libraries. It's probably better search an article database in his field of expertise. - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough; if you can provide other means of establishing notability, please do so. - Biruitorul Talk 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I doubt very much there are usable databases for the subject he works on, and I certainly doubt they would in in any manner a non-specialist in the languages and subject could possibly deal with. I think the part of the notability thats easiest to see, is as a textbook writer. The article could use some considerable trimming. DGG (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: here is his biog: [17]. Also see [18], he was nominated for a UNHCR post. Fences and windows (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article most likely arrived courtesy of self-promotion, and simply having your name appear on a scholarly paper or two is not in itself grounds for a "keep" vote. There is no contextual importance, meaning Mr. Sarsembaev is most likely not-notable within the Central Asian context. Dahn (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur P. Barnes[edit]

Arthur P. Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poorly sourced long-term BLP of unclear notability. BLP cleanup - I am neutral. Black Kite 15:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There was no AfD notice on the article itself — I completed the nomination by placing one there. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main claim to notability—the subject's having directed a notable university band for thirty-four-plus years—is sourced well, such that putative absence of sourcing should not be a dispositive issue here (one may, to be sure, remove the material in the "career" section that is not clearly sourced, although I would note that it seems that a source exists in Stanford Band, which attributes some of the identical material to an article in Rolling Stone). That the subject is notable seems clear to me, but I'll withhold a full WP:MUSIC analysis until I've more time; I mean only to note that this one does not suffer the same defects of the unsourced marginal BLPs with which we are presented of late at AfD. Joe 21:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been working on cleaning up the sourcing today, but the main source (the Stanford Magazine article) had long since been included as an external link in the article, and I suspect that if I had access to the Rolling Stone article I could clear up more of the citation needed tags. In any case, I think we have the multiple reliable sources needed for WP:BIO. As for the other criteria in WP:MUSIC, I think "Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre" fits, with his role in the establishment of LSJUMB as a well-known scatter band. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep director of the Stanford band is notable, quite apart from other parts of his role. It's essentially equivalent to coach of a major athletic team at the university. DGG (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Easter Monday. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veľkonočný pondelok (Easter monday) or Šibačka/Polievačka[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Veľkonočný pondelok (Easter monday) or Šibačka/Polievačka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I may be wrong, but I do not believe this content to be notable. — Dædαlus Contribs 06:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Easter Monday. This is already mentioned within the article. Since this article is totally uncited, we aren't losing any verified material. ThemFromSpace 01:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Easter Monday, which already contains links and details to more helpful articles about Easter Monday among several Slavic language communities. This non-English and untypeable title is unwieldy, but it's already been created once, and redirects are cheap. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health & Lifestyle Channel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Health & Lifestyle Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a television channel that appears to fail WP:N as I can't find any in-depth discussion of the channel from reliable sources. For a TV channel, it has hardly been mentioned at all in my google news searches: [19] [20]. The article as written contains a lot of peacock wording that leads me to believe this is an attempt at promotion. ThemFromSpace 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As far as I can figure, this is an exclusively Chinese TV station out of Hong Kong, so it's little wonder why there isn't much in an English google search. Searching for this in Chinese, I get several thousand results [21], though I don't understand any Chinese, so I have no idea how relevant this is. Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and request cleanup and sourcing from Chinese speaking/reading Wikipedians. Considering several thousand hits and the size of the market demographic in China, its a pretty safe bet that a few might source notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've just done a bit of coyedit to bring format into line with wiki standards, removing pecock and advert as per WP:AFTER. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This still fails WP:N. If reliable sources independant of the subject cannot be found, the article should be deleted. There still only appears to be trivial coverage of this subject. I don't know if you can read Chinese or not, but if you can't than don't source information to articles in Chinese. ThemFromSpace 01:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I simply pointed out that sources were available and suggested input from Chinese Wikipedians. There is a Chinese language source cited in the article, but it was not placed by me. It was put there by Excirial in March of 2008 diff and then converted by a bot in June 2008 diff. As for Chinese sources, if I WERE to add any, I would follow proper guideline and provide a translation of any cited text as per non-English sources and citing sources in different languages, as I am not a bot. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading this diff correctly, you sourced this website three times within the article. Although you just claimed not to, the diff says otherwise. ThemFromSpace 20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just used what had been present for a year in doing the cleanup. I added no non-english sources, just as I wrote above... simply used in WP:AGF what was already there long before my arrival. Thank you though for looking so thouroughly at the histories. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hadley (weather presenter)[edit]

Steve Hadley (weather presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This unreferenced BLP has been tagged for help for over a year now and no sources have been added to verify the article or demonstrate his notability. The speedy was removed back in 2006 along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ThemFromSpace 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please apply WP:BEFORE. - Mgm|(talk) 23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to offer up sources proving that he is notable by our standards then go ahead. I already looked. I thought that was to be assumed since I nominated the article for deletion. ThemFromSpace 23:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unreferenced + BLP = delete in my book. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are quite a few Steve Hadleys about, but I can't find any notability for this one - per WP:ENTERTAINER just being on TV is not enough. JohnCD (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. cleanup issues Fritzpoll (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get Your Sexy Back[edit]

Get Your Sexy Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about an anti-drinking campaign in Singapore. This was previously speedied as making no assertion of notability but since the article makes several (sourced) claims of notability it should be discussed instead.Nick Boalch\talk 08:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get Your Sexy Back (GYSB) is Singapore's first youth-led community initiative by Asia Pacific Breweries Singapore and it is actually a national moderate drinking campaign that has received significant amount of media coverage - print, online and broadcast. More recently, GYSB has extensively reached out to the audience through a mini-concert held at The Heeren and collaborations with acclaimed local band 大风吹 (Da Feng Chui), runners-up of Superband 2008 - who created the new GYSB theme song in Mandarin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.229 (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The "further reading" section now shows much coverage to establish notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this sourced but rather puffery article. Needs a good cleanup and does read rather as an advertisement. Springnuts (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Content issues remain, but these cannot be resolved by AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet's Hall[edit]

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

This is the first of a series of articles about locations on the Oyster Bay History Walk. The copyright issues in relation to the transcripts that make up part of the articles of the series have been dealt with (see WP:Copyright problems/2009_April_13). Some of the series just need cleanup and appropriate sourcing. Although there are issues with respect to promotional language and some trivia, these are not grounds for deletion. My main concern with this article is the notability of a building that has replaced a building that has replaced a building and looks nothing like the original structure. Nor does it have the same purpose. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A non notable building that has an article purely to promote a companies audio tape. --Paste Let’s have a chat. 09:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The current building is certainly not notable. Tim Ross (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Revisions Made 2009-04-14 Thank you for your comemnts. Some revisions were made to add new content and thresh the article out a bit more. Fleet's Hall indeed is an important place in Oyster Bay, even if it is no longer here in toto. The fact that a sitting U.S. President voted in a Presidential election here would seem to be enough. The added importance of being a major civic and social meeting place is also thought to be important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inoysterbay (talk • contribs) 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the fact that a sitting president voted in a building that no longer exists doesn't mean that the building that's now in the same location is inherently notable. This article (and most of the other Oyster Bay promo articles) should be deleted. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about the present building on the site. It is about the previous building on the site which is believed to be significant historically. Secondly, the comment about the "other Oyster Bay promo articles should be deleted". Just because these are part of an audio tour does not mean they are any more or less relevant than other published works. I actually believe the amount of research and development that went into producing these brief succinct tracks was of a higher and better quality than goes into most history works. Further, why should we not want to promote our historic buildings in Oyster Bay? They are a source of great civic pride. Ultimately, your suggestion would leave us with no sense of our history, and that is a reality I'm very uncomfortable accepting as someone who lives in this community. Why don't you visit this place before making sweeping assertions and judgments from afar?

Inoysterbay (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Give some time here for this article and related ones to be reworked. This is a new user, by username "Inoysterbay" is clearly identifying with the town. The development of the article is on his/her own, without benefit of constructive input of other historic-sites interested wikipedians such as are active in writing about other historic sites on Long Island and world-wide. I myself find my way here by noting a different link appropriately added by Inoysterbay to a wp:NRHP article. I'd like to help Inoysterbay by reviewing what are his/her documents available, and together defining some means to distinguish notability for some but not other Oyster Bay locations. This can best be done not under the gun of an AfD process. Some specific points:
    • Just because a building is gone does not mean it is not wikipedia-notable. There are many valid articles about buildings formerly listed on the NRHP, and other former buildings. It's a matter of there being adequate documentation (and someone's interest). In this case, it could be the former building that is more notable, and the article title/focus might best be transformed to describe the former site. It is indeed a bit awkward to present. But many examples exist of articles first being about a current building, on site of prior, e.g. Drake Circus Shopping Centre in Plymouth, England, is one i know about.
    • Promotional style tone can be revised. I think it is absurd to suggest that the person's interest is commercial, in terms of making his/her financial fortune from selling audio tapes of the walking tour. Rather, I assume there is some local pride reflected, which is fine to have but needs to be toned down for a more encyclopedic article.
    • I advise Inoysterbay to enlist help from the Long Island wikiproject, from individual Long Island-based editors of NRHP articles, and from WikiProject Historic sites, about describing the criteria and developing articles about Oyster Bay sites. It is hard on your own to do everything right at first, to avoid the AfD process.
    • I say, give some room here! But, if this one article is deleted, it can be recreated when more solid sourcing and other practices for these articles are defined. However, I think it is better to let this article be developed, rather than deleted and recreated. doncram (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addendum: I now observe that User:Tim Ross, User talk:Beeswaxcandle, and User talk:Paste kindly offered to help develop one big article on the walking tour, in notes at Inoysterbay's Talk page. Sorry i did not see those before. That could well be the best treatment, to cover the various walking tour sites in one article together in context. For the less notable sites on the walking tour, that would provide some coverage but avoid having a weak article. I would not be opposed to this article being merged and redirected to such a central article. Wouldn't that best be covered by a merger proposal, though, rather than an AfD? doncram (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Doncram that a destroyed building can still be notable because of what is was. I do feel though that the present structure is probably not notable and should be described only in passing for the purpose of locating the site. It would be better to try to salvage the article rather than just to scuttle it. clariosophic (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have also started articles regarding destroyed buildings, which are often still officially on the National Register of Historic Places. If it was notable when in was there, it's still worth noting, IMO. Lvklock (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current form. The confusingly written article does not make it clear what "Fleet's Hall" is (a house? a hall? a hut?), and do not provide references to reliable sources that cover it in any depth as required per WP:N. The first external link is dead.  Sandstein  06:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dead external link must have been dropped. There's only one external link now, which works. On the negative side, the remaining external link gives as its entire "Bibliography" the wikipedia article about Oyster Bay (hamlet). I hate to see wikipedia citing webpage citing wikipedia. It would be better if the webpage mentioned that as a "See also" type of link, as I think that the wikipedia page was not in fact the source. But, given the citation of wikipedia, I think the external link is not a reliable, independent source. Happily the current article does not seem to depend upon it. doncram (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep per recent edits, now cites a few useful sources.  Sandstein  16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable, and has historic significance. Needs work bringing into the style of Wikipedia historic building articles but this can with the assistance of editors familiar with writing about historic buildings. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doncram has made a good point, but I also tend to agree that the current building is at best of uncertain notability; we should probably modify the article so to make it centre on the former building.--Aldux (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's well-referenced, the references indicate that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is sufficient to establish notability per WP:N. Antony-22 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response
    • In re Doncram's addendum: The idea of merging came after the AfD - I hadn't thought of that possibility until Tim Ross suggested it on Inoysterbay's talk page - unfortunately at that point real life intruded and I was unable to follow-up until now.
    • I have just discovered that User:Inoysterbay is the Executive Director of the Oyster Bay Main Street Association, having been appointed to the position in March 2008. This means that it is his job to promote Oyster Bay and its history as widely as possible. This puts some context around his protestations about civic pride. It also suggests serious potential WP:COI issues. I see that he was notified of this by Smartse on 10 April, 2009 - before creating this series of articles.
    • If the close decision on this article is keep, I would ask that this be without prejudice to merging into the, yet to be written, article History of Oyster Bay (New York). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite as History of the Town of Oyster Bay, just as suggested. This will be a good solution. Obviously, if any of these places are in fact listed lanfdmarks, then they get articles. I think the National Register does a pretty good job of discrimination for subjects of this nature, and we should normally follow it, as a reliable authority. More reliable than us here, at any rate. DGG (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly correct. The National Register does not go out and look for historic places. They register the ones that someone writes up and submits to them. There is no reason that many of these places are on the register instead of another property except that someone took the time to do the research and submit it to NRHP. And my understanding is that to be on the register the property must be standing because their mission is to record existing properties. Other entities record places that are not still standing such state historical marker programs, or Historic American Buildings Survey. If we limit ourselves to National Register properties then we will be missing too big a slice of history. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some addtional comments: I agree with FloNight about National Register listings. Also some property owners refuse to let their properties be listed because they (rightly of wrongly) fear governmental interference with their use of these properties. Also Fleet's Hall has been edited to focus on Fleet's Hall itself while deleting material that detracted from that. I submit that the article in its present form should be kept. clariosophic (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. In many instances, the properties are researched and added to the Historic Register in an attempt to preserve the property from destruction or to influence zoning laws. These issues are not directly related to the historic significance of the property, so if Wikipedia solely relies on NRHP to decide our content inclusion criteria then we allow political reasons to unduly influence our articles. I agree that NRHP does a reasonably good job of recording properties that have local historic significance. And often the property will be representative of a broad historically significant concept that has globally or national meaning. But it is legitimate to question whether Wikipedia needs an article on every example of the historic concept, similar to it being legitimate to question whether whether Wikipedia needs to write an article about every book that every notable author wrote. My opinion is that there is value in having people write about each property on NRHP, but I can understand why others might disagree. Back to the main point of this discussion... Despite its destruction (making it ineligible for inclusion), Fleet's Hall has more historic significance than many properties on the NRHP, so using NRHP as a guide really does not work well in this instance. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Action/Adventure (album)[edit]

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

nn album Oo7565 (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 03:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elsass-Lothringen (book series)[edit]

Elsass-Lothringen (book series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about an unpublished series of eight science fiction books, apparently posted by their author. It seems only the first two books have even been written: publication date is given as 2014. No independent source is cited, and I can find none (note that "Elsass-Lothringen" gives plenty of hits because it is the German for "Alsace-Lorraine"). Fails Notability (books)#Not yet published books. PROD removed by author. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, A7 applies only to people, organizations and web content, explicitly excluding "articles about their books, albums, software and so on", and A9 covers only musical recordings. JohnCD (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--information about books that don't exist is difficult to verify. One hopes that the author of the books has a better grasp of grammar than the author of the article. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EXORCISMS[edit]

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

Unremarkable event/exhibition Anshuk (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sources, and the fact that we don't have an article on the gallery suggests that it's not notable itself. Tevildo (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable - I can only find listing-type mentions. JohnCD (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Clearly not notable. No external sources discussing the event. No claim even made for notability. LK (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Exorcism. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrorball (band)[edit]

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

Non-notifiable band. Cannot find any references for it. From the article it seems like it was a band formed at school that split up when they went to university. Quantpole (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - band that formed, jammed, played a bunch of low-key gigs, recorded a demo, then split up, just like 2357345873894573845 bands before and since. Band members probably had a lot of good times but sadly the band is not notable at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Landry[edit]

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

I am not convinced that this person is notable enough. I have added a reference but still I think he is unencyclopedic Anshuk (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now, a political party nomination in Nova Scotia is merely preparation for an election that hasn't happened yet (and while it's likely to happen sooner rather than later, it's not actually required to happen until 2011!). And WP:POLITICIAN clarifies that a simple candidacy isn't sufficient as a claim of notability — to merit a standalone article on here, a person needs to either win election to a legislature, or already be notable enough for inclusion under other guidelines that they'd merit an article even if they weren't running for office at all. If and when the election actually happens, he'll be entitled to an article if he wins, or to inclusion in a merged candidates list otherwise. Delete without prejudice against recreation if circumstances change in the future. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An actual candidate of a major party for a national office is possibly notable, but this is a provincial office, and ,accepting Bearcat's analysis, he is far from actual candidacy. Nothing else even possibly notable at this point. DGG (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability except being a candidate, and per WP:POLITICIAN that's not enough. JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we routinely delete articles on confirmed candidates as being non-notable, so it would seem logical that this prospective candidate doesn't quite meet the bar yet either. Recreate if and when he is elected. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - I do not think candidates at this level are notable, but I have no prejudice against recreating it if the guy does get elected or receives notable amount of attention during his campaign. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys (Counting Crows song)[edit]

Cowboys (Counting Crows song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 00:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Provine[edit]

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

Notability not asserted in the article, no outside references. That and the article is complete nonsense, and is either spam, nonsense, vandalism, or a joke entry. I think this is a joke article that has survived somehow, all edits to the article come from IP's in the Oklahoma area. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored a pre-vandalism version. Probably still promotional, but it deals with the utter bollocks. - Mgm|(talk) 08:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is probably the best pre-vandalism version. It appears to hardly discuss the creator and just details the works. (Emperor (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the de-vandalised article is entirely about his works, gives no independent references, and I can't find any that suggest notability. JohnCD (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). – Toon(talk) 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bog Marten[edit]

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

Hoax; the only reference to this species comes from another wiki site (zipcodezoo); it does not appear in ITIS, Catalogue of Life, Web of Science, google scholar, or Mammals of the World. TeaDrinker (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G3 by LadyofShalott. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computerology[edit]

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

Another "joke" religion, but Wikipedia is not for religions made up one day. Fails WP:V and WP:N. This is not the same as the subject of the previous AfD, so it does not qualify for WP:CSD#G4. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion remains the same as expressed in the {{prod2}} notice that I added. Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G3 or G11.--Pattont/c 13:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete – Wikipedia is not for stuff madeup by one day. Possible G3. LOL at the comment made when the PROD was contested, which is still there → [24]. MuZemike 16:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete of all the computerology's on all the computerised websites I could find on Google this is possibly the least notable - it only seems to exist on that Wikipedia thingy ϢereSpielChequers 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fancruft neologism and a joke. Transwiki to Uncyclopedia when possible. Junk Police (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highly entertaining, but I'm about to give it a G3 speedy deletion. LadyofShalott Weave 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd-Ditties[edit]

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

NN album Oo7565 (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was move to Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe. Suppressing redirect during move. No opinion on the specific title, and further name changes can be discussed elsewhere Fritzpoll (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid cuticle[edit]

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

This is not a phrase I can find in any sources. The sources given are all in Chinese and according to the talk page would fail our WP:RS criteria. It may be a hoax, it certainly seems to fail our notability guidelines and verifiability policy. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sources (translated: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]) are variously blogs or discussion boards and do not meet the standard required of WP:SOURCES. This is the only related English language source I could locate. Seemingly no scientific or medical references in any language. WWGB (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would we be able to consider stubbify as an option, or find if people are able to obtain "reliable sources"? I am absolutely unable to find English sources, perhaps as this would be relatively unheard of outside of China, I am able to find Chinese sources, however it is definitely not a hoax and exists. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • QUOTE: "It may be a hoax" - such a harsh statement, without any justification. I could invite you to my house and show you my toes and my family's toes, and then take you to a school and show you every single Chinese student's toes, but I'm pretty sure you would decline. I have no issues with you saying that it is "poorly referenced", however I do not accept the fact that your nom is based on the assumption that it is a hoax. From your other argument, how does it fail to meet notability? Is it not as significant as Mongolian spot or Epicanthal fold? As I have said on the talk page, please try not to demolish the house before it is even built. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mongolian spot is an accepted medical fact. Epicanthal fold is an accepted medical fact. Mongoloid cuticle appears not to be. WWGB (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This does not mean that it is a hoax. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 12:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, from above, Source 2 is not a discussion blog. Regarding Source 1, the text content has been changed from when I last accessed it (it now is a page on human evolutionary theory), and so it can be removed from the article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I am able to find more reliable sources, would you consider keeping it, while removing unsupported claims? I have found two reliable articles so far:

1. http://koudai.360.cn/u/19377718/article_143411183.html?s=y - This is an article, non-blog, non-forum. Quote:

导游会问你的左脚的小脚指甲有无分岔？据说有分岔的人，都是从山西迁徙出去的。汉人小脚拇指的指甲盖，通常分裂为两半。不过两半不成比例，

Rough translation by Google Translate:

Ask your guides left bifurcation any small toenail? Bifurcation is said to have people who are migrating away from the Shanxi Province. Han Chinese bound feet thumb nail covers, are usually split into two halves. But in two out of proportion

Important section noted in bold.

2. http://www.360doc.com/content/090317/12/116177_2833073.html - This is also an article, non-blog, non-forum. Quote:

民族大融合后的汉人的脚指头，小拇指的指甲盖，通常分裂为两半。不过两半不成比例，一半大得多，一半很少，不注意是很难发现的,而且男左女右。异民族的脚趾的小拇指头，则是完整光滑的一块。

Google Translate:

After the national integration of the Chinese脚指头,小拇指cover the nail, usually split into two halves. However, out of proportion in two, half is much greater, half small, pay no attention to it is very difficult to find, and男左女右. Toes of different ethnic groups小拇指first, it is a smooth complete.

See bold. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have stubbified the article, and it will remain a stub until I can find acceptable sources for the removed sections. Please see if the current revision is acceptable or not. Thanks, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::Something that exists in the areas the article claims it does should certainly have non-Chinese sources describing it, and I am very surprised that it has no English-language sources if there is medical literature in any other language. And as you claim the epicanthic fold and the Mongolian spot are distinguishing features of the alleged 'Mongoloid race', and yet they clearly are not as they are found in people's that are not classified as Mongolian, I'm even more dubious about where you are getting your information. I don't see how stubbifying it helps except of course my points about the epicanthic fold and Mongoloid spot no longer apply. Let's let the process unfold, people have 7 days to make their comments. Start by finding acceptable sources for the phrase 'Mongoloid cuticle'. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessarily have to be called that. What it is called is not the main issue here. The main issue is whether it exists or not, and how one can prove its existence, through reliable sources. We can figure out the name dispute afterwards, that is the minor, insignificant issue. Right now, I shall find sources to prove its existence. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I hope you are not saying that you wish to demolish the entire article just because of its name, are you? "Mongoloid cuticle" is probably not the official name in English, that is just a direct translation from the Chinese term "蒙古人种指甲", we can decide what to call it afterwards. My priority is the article itself, not what it should be called. Within seven days I can prove its existence using acceptable sources, however I cannot guarantee the name. It's not that I am desperate or anything, it is just that I am able to prove what it is and leave it to remain as a stubbified article. I just require time. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
QUOTE: "And as you claim the epicanthic fold and the Mongolian spot are distinguishing features of the alleged 'Mongoloid race', and yet they clearly are not as they are found in people's that are not classified as Mongolian, I'm even more dubious about where you are getting your information." I hope you shall be kind enough to eat your own words. Original line from article: "The Mongoloid cuticle is one of a few distinguishing features of the Mongoloid race." Note that I did not say that they must be mongoloid, as you have interpreted it. These traits are commonly found in Mongoloids, that does not equate to "therefore all XYZ must be Mongoloids". Quote from Mongolian spot article: "Mongolian spots are most prevalent among Mongols, Turks, and other Asian groups, such as the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. Nearly all East Asian infants are born with one or more Mongolian spots. It is also common if only one of the parents is East Asian...The incidence among caucasians from Europe is between 1-10%." It does not contradict with my statement; it is common in East Asians and uncommon in Europeans. I never said that it did not occur in Europeans, I never used the exact words. Distinguishing features include those that are common in one place but not another. Refer to black corn and yellow corn; both occur everywhere, but in different proportions. Note that in Mongoloid race, Native Americans are classified as "Mongoloid". Quote from Mongolian spot article: "A Mongolian spot (also called a mongolian fleck, mongolian blue spot or congenital dermal melanocytosis) is a benign flat congenital birthmark with wavy borders and irregular shape, most common among East Asians and Turks, and named after Mongolians. It is also extremely prevalent among East Africans, Polynesians, and Native Americans." Am I incorrect? Similarly, Quote from Epicanthal fold: "The epicanthic fold occurs commonly in people of Central Asian, East Asian and Southeast Asian descent as a result of adaptive significance." The word "common" is used, not "exclusively", which also does not contradict to what I have said. You have also said QUOTE: "distinguishing features of the alleged 'Mongoloid race'" Why do you use quotes? Why do you use "alleged"? Have a look at Mongoloid race, a concept in which I did not invent. Your word structures appear as if I said I saw a UFO. Right now I don't take any offense at that, but from now on, please watch how you use your words. QUOTE: "Something that exists in the areas the article claims it does should certainly have non-Chinese sources describing it" - a rather eurocentric statement, in which Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia accepts sources from all languages, as long as they can be proved to be reliable. Why are there no detailed English accounts for Wei Guanzhi? or Heshen? or Zhang Hongjing? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I use alleged because a lot of scientists don't see any scientific basis for these racial classifications. Since I don't believe these races exist, I use quotation marks, 'alleged', etc. Leaving that aside for the moment, the presence of the epicanthic fold is no guarantee the person belongs to the 'Mongoloid race', ditto the Mongolian spot. Thus they are not distinguishing features.
We can't decide what to call the article, we need to use the term used in the scientific literature. Any language scientific literature, but I still would expect more than Chinese sources can be found if this is a scientifically shown feature. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only English article (i.e. non-forum) that I have found so far that mentions the trait, after two hours of Googling, is [35] which doesn't really seem to be a good source. I'll try for another three hours today before I nod off and sleep. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 13:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've tried searching various combinations of Mongoloid, Asian, Chinese, toenail, and "fifth phalanx" and haven't been able to turn up any mention of this. Han Chinese people live in many places other than China, and I would expect this to be discussed somewhere in Western medical literature; but it doesn't seem to be. Deor (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only results from searching "chinese pinky toenail" are forums, which are not valid sources. I can get better articles in Chinese, but apparently it is not acceptable, something that I don't entirely understand. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources are from blogs and forums, so if the creator does not provide reliable sources (news, academic sources), there is no reason to keep the article.--Caspian blue 14:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My guess is that this is not so much a medical reality as a popular idea/old wives tale (like the idea that half-Asians are all more attractive than the sum of their parts—no scientific basis whatsoever, but don't think it's not a common national myth). It could still be worth mentioning, though, as a popular idea, rather than a medical condition. Perhaps by looking for "reliable medical sources" we are barking up the wrong tree, and it would be better to change the focus of the article entirely? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggests this article to be merged into Han chinese, this is a very popluar myth occur among the Chinese internet community, specifically within the satellite forums of Han clothing (Hanwang). It is said that during the Ming dynasty, a group a Shanxiese were forced to cut their nail on their little toe and moved to Henan, there are many versions of the story. Both my brother and I have this, and there is a wide popular belief that whoever having this toes and the "phoniex eye" (slant eye) are the so called real Han chinese descendant. I doubt this have any scientific prove, I had seen southern Han and non-Han Indonesian/etc nor who look not like Mongoloid at all (100%) but having such toenail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.181 (talk)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe. See this article in Dermatologic Surgery. With many thanks to WikiProject Medicine's fabulous dermatology task force. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well done! That's a start -- I've done another search, and that's all I can find. The article may give clues as to other sources. We certainly can't keep the current title as things stand, even if in the end we find we can keep the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentThe abstract of the cited article does not state this is unique to Chinese. The blurry photo illustrating the Wikipedia article could be of a split toenail as easily as some exotic "Mongoloid cuticle." This does not satisfy verifiability or notability yet. I could not find anything in Google Book search related to "Accessory nail of the fifth toe" There should be more than one source, which the viewable portion does not show to be clearly about the claimed trait, to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Sources should link it to the population it is claimed to be especially common in. Nail bifurcation is also discussed at "A Text Atlas of Nail Disorders." as occurring in big toes fingers and thumbs. This has also been called "supernumerary nail" in a dermatology book from the 1870's pages 82-83, and in "On diseases of the skin" (1857) page 610. The congenital bifurcation of the underlying phalanx is mentioned as a likely cause of bifurcation of a toenail in Manual of nail diseases and surgery"(1997) page 6. None of these works relates the condition particularly to Asians. Reliable sources are needed to verify the condition has some special relation to some group of Asians. Edison (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: "Unique" is not used, but "common" is. Since this is the only firm source we have at the moment, we can base the article on a trait that is common in population XYZ. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 00:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: It is not the same trait as [37]. In the link given, the toe is split into two equal parts. What the trait in the article is about is a tiny fragment of toenail growing vertically out of the outer corner of the toe ("outer" refers to "away from the body", on either the left or right side, depending on the foot). The trait was never a bifurcation, as in [38], but rather a partial separation of an unequal amount, an accessory nail found to the side of the larger nail, which does not have any purpose. Bifurcation would be an entirely different idea. It also has no relation to [39], an entirely different concept, as the trait in the article is inherited and not the result of some form of injury. I have found many websites that have a copy of the "Inherited Accessory Nail of the Fifth Toe" report by Ching-Chi Chi, MD, and Shu-Hui Wang, MD, and nothing else so far in relation to medical reports. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "Inherited accessory nail". I found that paper as well. I have added it to the article references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks for finding the Dermatologic Surgery article. I don't support a move at this time. --Boston (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As per my initial comment at WT:DERM, what is being described in this article sound to me like "Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe." However, I have no source for the term "Mongoloid cuticle" and cannot verify whether it is synonymous with the term "Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe." The [40] reference should be used to support an Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe article but not to support the term "Mongoloid cuticle." At this time, I support keeping an Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe article, but, given the lack of reliable source for the term "Mongoloid cuticle," would not support an article or redirect for Mongoloid cuticle. ---kilbad (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is intended to be described in the article is exactly the same to that described in the paper by Chi, CC and Wang SH. "Mongoloid Culticle" is most probably an incorrect term, not the most correct name in English. The article should be renamed entirely. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 12:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. Sounds like a good plan to me. ---kilbad (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 02:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Roman[edit]

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

author is not even on amazon and there is no assertion of notability

The author appears to have published nothing, as this "Graphic Novel" is unpublished Pontificalibus (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - according to the external link the book will not be published till 2010, so fails WP:BK#Not yet published books, and no other notability is claimed for the author. JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THE AUTHOR IS NOT ON AMAZON BECAUSE HIS FIRST BOOK WILL ON SALE IN 2010. THE AUTHOR AND THE BOOK ARE NOTABLE BECAUSE OF THE RARITY OF HARPERCOLLINS - ONE OF THE LARGEST MAIN STREAM PUBLISHERS IN THE WORLD - COMMISSIONING A GRAPHIC NOVEL, WITH MAURO DIPRETA AS EDITOR (THE EDITOR OF MARLEY & ME, AN INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER). THIS IS ADEQUATELY NOTED IN THE PUBLISHER'S LUNCH REFERENCE. ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE PUBLISHING INDUSTRY WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A NOTABLE AUTHOR AND A NOTABLE BOOK.
THERE ARE MANY "UPCOMING" MAJOR WORKS OF ART - MOVIES, BOOKS, ALBUMS - WHICH HAVE ENTRIES IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT CHALLENGE, SO TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THIS ONE SEEMS ARBITRARY, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT WILL BE ONE OF HARPERCOLLINS' BIGGEST RELEASES IN 2010 - THE FIRST GRAPHIC NOVEL THAT MAURO DIPRETA AND IT BOOKS RELEASES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjroman (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Argh, my eyes! Please don't post in all caps. The article is a clear WP:CRYSTAL violation, and I feel that the accompanying article about the author's unpublished only work should be deleted too. I'm passingly familiar with the graphic novel business, and I disagree fiercely with Kjroman's analysis. I also would point out that there's a likely WP:COI issue, comparing that user's name with the article title; and this also leads me to suspect a hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is indeed a COI issue - Kjroman is presumably the subject of the article, and the original article author J Cliche identifies himself on its talk page with "I am an agent of the author and therefore speak for Harper Collins in this regard." The book's article has been dePRODded, so I have taken it to AfD here. JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with no prejudice against the article being re-created when it's actually been published and actually become notable by receiving coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources and/or winning notable awards.

    I understand the temptation to create a Wikipedia article about the book in order to promote it, but Wikipedia doesn't (and can't) work that way. First the book becomes notable, then it gets a Wikipedia article. If we allowed it to work the other way round, Wikipedia would be awash with promotional content.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Obviously fails notability guidelines as the author of zero published works. Edward321 (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against Nature (album)[edit]

Against Nature (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable contest.no External links no claim to notability and no references to establish notability. Oo7565 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 02:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Yu[edit]

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

No evidence of coverage in reliable sources that might establish notability. Oo7565 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colby's Clubhouse[edit]

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

Delete: article is a simply a voluminous set of WP:PLOT summaries, plus a smaller amount of WP:OR. The article currently cites no sources, and {{find}} turns up nothing that would indicate notability. As WP:FICTION has yet to be ratified, WP:GNG is the controlling guideline, and requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As the article is currently completely unsourced, WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" is also applicable. WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:LOSE & WP:IKNOWIT arguments (such as were made in the first AfD) are never relevant. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network — either national or regional in scope — of radio or television stations, or on a single cable television network with a national or regional audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market.

In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program can be notable enough for inclusion if it played a role in exposing a political scandal that resulted in the impeachment of the city's mayor — and a national television program can be non-notable if it got cancelled too quickly to have garnered any real media coverage.

One therefore cannot use WP:OUTCOMES#Media to circumvent this topics's lack of significant sourcing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to this dismissal, WP:OUTCOMES#Media most definitely applies when it states quite simply, and sweetly ,and quite clearly... and not just "generally"...

WP:OUTCOMES#Media: Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are notable.

Point of fact: TBN is indeed a major broadcast network, and its 23 million viewers in nearly 22% of American households reached should not lightly be so easliy dismissed. The List of United States over-the-air television networks#Religious shows, even though segregated by format, that it is a major station. No one said it was THE major station (though it is the absolute Top Dog for Christian broadcasting), only that it is major. Period. Unless the nom can find some guideline or policy that says a station cannot be major if it is Christian broadcasting, or it cannot be major if it "only" has 23,300,500 viewers. And referring to proper use of guideline as "circumvention"? Goodness. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Points of fact:
  1. That "TBN is indeed a major broadcast network" is not a "fact" but a conclusion, and a highly doubtful one (despite MichaelQSchmidt's huffing and puffing that "it is major. Period.") as I will demonstrate below.
  2. The only relevant "fact" in the above claim is that it reaches 22% of US households. As List of United States over-the-air television networks#Major English-language networks shows 7 "major" networks having coverage of 96-99% of households, this puts TBN at less than a quarter of their size in terms of coverage,. This large difference is more than enough reason to question TBN's inclusion as a "major broadcast network". Further, TBN's coverage is smaller than six "Specialty and digital terrestrial television networks".
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point of fact:
My "conclusion" was based upon the very same facts you yourself pointed to... that wiki-editor-generated and undoubtedly reliable-and-always-quoted-by-mainstream-media "list of television stations". Your dismissiveness of Trinity Broadcast Network, the largest Christian Broadcast network, because it "only" reaches 22% of US housholds while serving over 23 million viewers seems a bit of a stretch. I can see you are of strong opinion that Christian Stations cannot be notable or major. Your "demonstration" of its insignificance, despite the numbers to the contrary, is more the huffing and puffing you claim of me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Points of fallacy:
"I can see you are of strong opinion that Christian Stations cannot be notable or major." Thank you for putting words in my mouth, that in no way resemble anything I have said, in gross violation of WP:AGF & WP:TALK. I had neither brought up the fact that TBN is Christian, nor in any way suggested that it be held to a different standard than other networks because of this. Your behaviour is (in the words of WP:TALK) "unacceptable". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to contend that the largest Christian broadcast network is not major, in spite or because of the wiki-list you yourself provided, then the lack of WP:AGF is yours not mine. Thank you. And further, as you seem to attribute a comment to me that I did not make, wondering if Christian stations are being held to a different standard was made by a different editor in asking a question of yet another about his own comment diff. Accusing me of originally posing that question is what is unacceptable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I merely contend that "the largest Christian broadcast network" is not automatically "major", any more than any other 'speciality' network is automatically so. Thank you for misrepresenting me yet again. The "wiki-list [I my]self provided" lists only 7 explicitly "major" networks, that are (as I have previously mentioned) far larger than TBN, and a large number of smaller networks. Inclusion on this list, other than as an explicitly "major" network, should therefore not be taken as indication that a network is "major". I would further point out (i) that I did not "attribute a comment to [you] that [you] did not make, wondering if Christian stations are being held to a different standard" & (ii) that in fact your continual harping on about "the largest Christian broadcast network" could be considered to holding Christian stations to a different standard (are the 'largest cartoon network', 'largest music network' and/or 'largest nature/science network' likewise automatically "major"?). I will conclude by asking you to kindly cease and desist misrepresenting my comments -- such misrepresentations are held to be "unacceptable" by WP:TALK. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last solid keep in 2007. What was relevent from the last AfD is the closing admin's cogent conclusion: "consensus suggests that the Trinity Broadcasting Network is indeed notable (5 million households viewers per week is actually quite high)". He did point out that the article was in dire need of cleanup. Its a shame that it was not at the top of everybody's list of concerns for improvement, what with concerns for the more notable articles on consumer food products and such, but his conclusions are still valid. Since the basic conclusions stil apply, and since Wiki has no deadline for nor expectation of perection, the article is still a keeper. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would strongly suggest that MichaelQSchmidt read WP:AADD. The closing admin's conclusion that he quotes is WP:INHERITED and thus fatally flawed (in that even if TBN is notable does not mean that this program is). Neither the comments on the first AfD, the closing admin's comments nor MichaelQSchmidt's !vote addresses the sources available on this topic, thus they are neither "cogent", nor address the controlling notability guideline, nor whether sources exist to make the oft-proposed, but never-attempted, cleanup of this article even possible. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in strongly suggesting I should read WP:AADD, I will state that I have visited that page. It is an essay and not guideline nor policy. The recurring suggestion of elevating it to guideline status is again under discussion. The best guideline ever is common sense. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept good faith in the admin's conclusion that a network with 5 million households viewers per week is actually quite high, and strongly suggest that the nominator might assume the same, or otherwise provide evidences that those wishing deletion immediately protested what he now feels was a flawed closure. Since before this second AfD of the kept article, I was not aware of the article, nor of its AfD closure in 2007. Again, wiki has no deadline for improvement and recognizes that it is itself not perfect. Can the nom then show that editors not rushing to improve a kept article is itslf against policy or guideline? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Whether TBN is "a network with 5 million households viewers per week is actually quite high" is irrelevant as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so whether TBN is notable has no bearing on whether this show is.
  2. It is likewise irrelevant whether "those wishing deletion immediately protested", as this is not a DRV review of that decision, but a new AfD. What is relevant is whether the closing admin's argument, which you use as the basis for your keep !vote, is a valid reason for retention. This argument's inclusion in WP:AADD would appear to indicate that it is not.
  3. The issue is not "no deadline", but no sources -- none in the article, none apparently available (via {{find}}), no reliable ones mentioned in any of the pro-keep discussion in either AfD. 'No sources' is "against pollicy [(WP:V) and] guideline" (WP:GNG).
Question: why do you refuse to discuss this topic's lack of sourcing, when this is explicitly mentioned in my nomination, and explicitly brought up in my above comment? Do you honestly believe that the sourcing (actual and/or potential) for this article meets WP:GNG? If so, how? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That I accept good faith in an admin's previous closure is an perfect valid justification to vote keep, as it encourages other editors to review the previous discussions and make their own informed opinion. And yes, it is most specifically about no deadline for improvement, since sources are availabble. Nominating for deletion rather than adding them yourself seems contrary to WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, but no one has to add anything. After viewing the revert battle going on in the histories betwewen you and an anonymous IP... such events immediately preceding your making a second nomination for deletion... I decided it will be far easier to either improve or enlist help to improve, than argue about the merits of a Christian program broadcast on a Christian Network. I will not be dismissive of TBN, or their works, or thier viewers. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:AGF does not require that you accept an argument when that argument has been rejected (by its inclusion in WP:AADD) by the community.
  2. I performed my 'due diligence' as required under WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, through the {{find}} template as stated above. It found no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- a finding that the trivial-coverage, questionably-reliable and/or non-independent sources that you have uncovered does not rebut. Thank you for your failure to WP:AGF by claiming that I didn't do this. [Addendum, I have quoted these sources at WT:Articles for deletion/Colby's Clubhouse (2nd nomination)#Coverage of the topic in newly introduced sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC) ][reply]
Question: since you have failed to address this, I will put it to you directly -- do you think the closing admin's argument "consensus suggests that the Trinity Broadcasting Network is indeed notable (5 million households viewers per week is actually quite high)" is WP:INHERITED? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:AFTER I found and added a few sources and did some minor cleanup. The article still needs a rewrite or consoldation of the episide section. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the sources added do not give "significant coverage" (generally only a partial sentence, or product-listings, on the topic), and the reliability and/or independence of some of them is questionable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognize and understand the differences between sources offered per policy WP:V and those offered per guideline WP:RS. And as an aside, WP:FICTION is not and may never be a guideline, and all guidelines are subject to Policy and common sense. They are not LAW. The goal of any editor is to improve wiki and its unique strengths as an encyclopedia editable by anybody... not to make it a clone of Britanica, an encyclopedia edited by academics. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (i) I would point out that I never based any argument upon WP:FICTION (and in fact explicitly disavowed it as a basis), so your first point is strawman. (ii) Your second point is WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, and particularly weak as it includes no arguments for ignoring the guideline that have not already been rejected by their inclusion in WP:AADD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was you who first brought up WP:FICTION, not I. Please accept good faith in my keep vote and my own wish to improve the article. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I "brought up WP:FICTION" only to explicitly disavow it as unratified. You are misrepresenting me again. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to bring it up at all, as an unratified and contested essay/proposal-in-works has no relevance to this discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - did a quick and less than thorough google search, and saw nothing to indicate to me that the subject meets notability guidelines. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michael. Sourced adequately to side on the side of keep. Ikip (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject clearly fails the notability guidelines. It's an evangalizing christian show, whose only sources are evangalizing publications. No notabilty established via reliable, independent sources. Let's not be advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Advertising? Every page "advertises" its subject here... whether an article or a userpage. The idea is to be informative in increasing a reader's understanding of the subject, and per guideline Jclemens is correct in WP:OUTCOMES#Media. Nice job. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bali ultimate, could you please clarify your statement? It almost sounds like you mean that religious content is held to a different standard than non-religious content. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:OUTCOMES#Media TV shows which aired on a major network are notable by default. Jclemens (talk)
    ... And while this is regrettably not in a format that lents itself to citation Smile of a Child's TV schedule shows that it is still airing daily. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am in agreement with Jclemens' observation regarding WP:OUTCOMES#Media and with Mr. Schmidt's vigorous defense of the article. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps if it was listed in a proper episode list format, it'd be more presentable. Anyway, I looked through the first nomination this article had, and don't see as how anything has changed. It has millions of viewers, and that clearly makes it notable, based on wp:common sense, which is vastly more important than the notability guidelines/suggestions at determining notability. Dream Focus 02:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for same reasons as last time. In fact, I'm just going to re-post my previous comment, as all of it still applies: "It's a Christian show for very very small kids, so it's hardly likely to have an online fan presence like The Simpsons or Star Trek (that said, there does appear to be at least one unofficial fan site for it). While I'm not sure I want to go on record as having said that "all TV shows are notable", it seems to me that a TV show that lasted 3 seasons and is STILL on air on the largest Christian network in the world is notable by any reasonable definition." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are all kinds of definitions of "major" when it comes to television networks (some sources only consider the top 4 networks major, excluding The CW; I'd hope we wouldn't start nominating CW shows for deletion because of this), but the relevant issues here are that is a network with nationwide coverage, and that there are independent reliable sources cited that give enough coverage to support the facts in this article. This is also the type of show that is far more likely to be covered in offline printed sources than in sources that are available online. DHowell (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable. But the plot summaries and episode list need to be severely trimmed. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and in agreement. I have just copied the episode list and loooong plot summaries to the article talk page for further discussion and set a simplified episode list in place diff. There were concerns of this dicussed in 2007. User:WAVY 10 Fan then copied the informations to a seperate list article in August 2007 diff and it was replaced with a lengthy season cast list. When the sepertae list was prodded by an anonymous IP in October 07 for being unsourced diff, the editor put the list back in the main article diff, and the seperate list was deleted diff. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not required, and per Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion, I will be making a courtesy notification the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that has been nominated for deletion. This is not canvassing, as it will be neutral in tone and will be sent to any non-anonymous IP that contributed. This will enable those with related knowledge to participate in this debate, for better or worse. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral notifications made. Did not notify anonymous Ip's nor SPA accounts. Notifications were sent only to editors who made 2 or more edits, even if the edits involved an earlier prodding. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TBN is sufficiently important that its major continuing shows are notable. I strongly deprecate in advance any attempt to make articles on their episodes without prior consensus. DGG (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it isn't on a secular kid's network doesn't mean the program has no notability to speak of. It aired for several seasons on one of the largest religious networks around and is still aired on SoaC. Nate • (chatter) 09:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Enigmamsg 01:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Zerdin[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for 10 months. Notability is borderline at best. Enigmamsg 03:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An unsourced BLP is only problematic when the unsourced material is negative or contentious which is not the case here. A Google News search turns up 80 hits which, based on his unusual name, are highly likely to refer to him. According to The Stage,[41] he is "a Royal Variety regular and sometime Muppet puppeteer." The Royal Variety only includes notable entertainers. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their standard for notability is not Wikipedia's standard. Being a "Royal Variety regular" doesn't mean much. If he's notable, then the article should have references to support that. Enigmamsg 12:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the article was longer I might have agreed it should be deleted, but a stub is hardly unsalvageable when there are 80 possible sources lying around. As for the Royal Variety Performance, some common sense would be nice. Can you name a person other than Zerdin that performed in the RVP and is not notable to Wikipedia's standards? I believe no such person exists, because people who do such performances are chosen based on their existing notability in the entertainment industry. - Mgm|(talk) 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look at the article on the Royal Variety. I don't think all their performers are automatically notable. Enigmamsg 01:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's plenty of evidence in the Google News search linked above that the subject is notable - I've added a couple of the sources to the article. The Times seems to regard him as notably good [42] and the Daily Mirror as notably bad [43], but either way he is notable. And yes, I agree, an appearance at the Royal Variety Performance, although maybe not considered particularly cool amongst the teenagers that edit Wikipedia, is by common sense an indication of notability. Don't you Americans understand that such a performance involves the risk of the artist being beheaded at the Tower if it doesn't amuse the monarch? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a reason you have to be deliberately offensive? If you think this guy is notable, you can say so without the insults. If it helps, I am not an American teenager, a group you seem to vilify. I am withdrawing the AfD because it simply is not worth it for me to have to respond to personal attacks simply because I nominated an article to be deleted. Enigmamsg 01:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber-Duck[edit]

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

Speedy denied, prod removed. This article reads like an advertisment for a web designer which has quite a small portfolio. The awards mentioned seem to have many winners and Cyber-duck's awards are not at the highest level being bronze in one award and commended in the other. The Borehamwoods and Elstree times does not strike me as particularly notable Porturology (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I declined the speedy because importance was asserted, but I concur that there doesn't seem to be enough on this company to justify an article. Would appear to fail WP:CORP, because I don't think that a single article in a local newspaper meets our criteria for multiple reliable sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Strong Keep, this article has references that validate its existence, but just because they are not cited properly, this article shouldn't be deleted. If Mighty Taco can have an article referencing only its own self, why can't Cyber-Duck which has proper references attached to it - now that's one question that's bothering me! :D Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I saw the Borehamwood & Elstree Times article on the company and the online version doesn't do it much justice.this is a genuine article about a company that made its way through the credit crunch and our uni teacher also shared this with us. I have fixed the reference problem and have fixed the links on the article. Nowhere on the article does it link to the company itself. If the original author doesn't revert the changes on the article to display a disputed POV or advertise, this should be considered a genuine article. SholeemGriffin (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Head-Fi[edit]

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

Just another internet forum; remains without evidence of notability after over a year of being tagged. Orange Mike | Talk 03:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This internet forum, according to its Facebook page, is "the web's headquarters for discussing (and reading about) high-end personal audio and headphones." However, I cannot find any independent published works dealing with the website, nor does it seem to be mentioned in any notable third-party form of coverage. There is no assertion of notability beyond the website's claim to be "the web's headquarters" for its subject, and that's something that anyone could write about anything without citing a source. Clearly fails WP:WEB. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Posturisation, fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:WEB. Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a bit suspious how many ads and sponsors there are on that forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John328478 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Sun[edit]

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

I'm as big a fan of 'Firefly' as the next geek, but this article fails pretty much all our policies: it's on a non-notable element of a fictional setting, without any independent references, that consists almost entirely of original research. If the original research (i.e. the list of appearances and speculation) was removed, there wouldn't be enough content left to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate: this organisation was never directly referred to in the series itself, only in the DVD special features and commentaries. Notability within the series is minor; real-world notability is essentially nonexistent. Robofish (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree: within the series it is clear to the viewer that there is something ubiquitous and ominous about Blue Sun. All Browncoats know that. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability outside the Browncoat/fangeek community (such as myself, my wife, our daughter, our friends, etc.). Sorry, but it just ain't making it. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • QUERY: Do we have a notability guideline for fictitious organizations? At risk of seeming to make a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, we do have articles for comparable organizations within fictional continuities (e.g. Omni Consumer Products; Cyberdyne Systems), and I don't know what guideline other than GNG apply. If we delete this article, do we undermine those articles? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply - both of those are in media franchises that are much larger in public consciousness than the Firefly franchise (albeit in my opinion, much inferior). (And yes, yours is an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't an argument of any kind, just an observation accompanying a question.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (A question that hasn't been answered, incidentally. In which notability guideline does "scale of media franchise in public consciousness" appear?)- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, there is a proposed WP:Notability (fiction), but it's highly controversial and not universally agreed upon. General notability guideline would apply here though, I reckon; as for what that would mean for Cyberdyne, Weyland-Yutani and the rest of them... I guess it comes down to whether they're significantly covered by independent reliable sources. Blue Sun, at least, arguably isn't. Robofish (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per our GNG. This is the kind of stuff that makes it lamentable that our fict guideline is in such a state of disrepair, as it ought clearly to be enjoined. Eusebeus (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varadarasanar[edit]

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

None of the information given is suitably referenced; two of the refs just give content of the books, they do not verify the facts; the third is culturopedia, which is not a reliable source. If I remove all the bio content that is unreferenced, therefore, there will be nothing left. I'm not claiming that this is not a notable person - plenty in Google - but the information in the current article cannot be verified.  Chzz  ►  02:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is notability here for sure; if the only problem is the fact that the article in its current form fails WP:V, a rewrite with new sources is a better alternative to outright deletion in my mind. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a Sahitya Academy awardee is definitely notable. A RSmentions him. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Tamil writer. Multiple reliable sources mention him [44]. Salih (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't nominate it as not notable; I nominated it because not a single piece of inoformation given in the article has an WP:RS. If we 'keep' the document, but delete all the unreferenced bits, it will therefore be blank. We simply can't improve the current content with references - it would require starting again.  Chzz  ►  21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be helpful to know how much searching you did for sources before nominating it for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is there any reason why the article couldn't be rewritten with new sources? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears that the subject is better known as "Mu Varadarajan". I note that the nominator gave verifiability as the reason for deletion, even after finding sources. If you can find sources then the thing to to is to put them in the article, not to nominate it for deletion. You could start with some of these 973 books. Articles get deleted because they can't be sourced, not because an editor decides that it's someone else's job to add the readily available reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve references. Cnilep (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But make it a stub, until someone decides to improve it, or rather write a proper article. The article creator apparently “retired” soon after he created the article. The problem is not only with the lack of refs., but also incomplete sentences and apparently incorrect information. This Google Books search suggests that the subject probably passes WP:PROF, not as much by the number of hits, but by the nature of several of the references to the subject.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of James Buchanan[edit]

Sexuality of James Buchanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I only found this article through Talk:James Buchanan; it is not linked to from any articles and rightly so. A POV fork whose content, by definition, can only be speculation unless there's some groundbreaking new information that comes out. I was going to just replace it with a redirect given the orphan status but decided to nominate it here instead. In addition to the POV fork objection, I can't think of a reason why it would justify an article. If it becomes a big enough issue, a section can be created at James Buchanan (the poor man is only known as the one who fudged things up prior to Lincoln - being known as the first gay president would be an improvement). Recognizance (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POVFORK of the main article, which includes most of this detail and language without the emphasis on a particular source. JJL (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There essentially isn't any content here that isn't in the main article James Buchanan (except for one reference, which I will add there). No point in arguing Merge or Keep for an article (existing since 2005), that mostly duplicates content in the main article, some of which is phrased slightly differently. Also, there really isn't enough meat here to justify a separate article. Once deleted, I (or someone else) will add a REDIRECT. — Becksguy (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Becksguy; there is no information here that can't be found in the main article, and this small amount of information does not justify the separate article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears the article exists to drive home a point through synthesis. Giving it a separate page gives it undue weight. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MGM is correct about the undue weight issue, and the discussion of the subject in the main article is far superior - merger could actually degrade the main article. Townlake (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Already deleted by User:PMDrive1061. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kvardivkiteta[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe it belongs in Wiktionary. Not here. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of it on Google - maybe a hoax for one cup two girls? Alice (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triple C Web Application[edit]

Triple C Web Application (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable HTML syntax (which judging from the article doesn't really appear to actually work anywhere) Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • And given the glacial pace of browser adoption of new HTML features (and this is not even being considered by W3C) will probably never come to anything. Nice idea, no citations, no keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, borderline incomprehensible article. (It "shortens the way of the HTML"?) Zetawoof(ζ) 04:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be about software that, according to the article, has zero current users. No indication of notability. –Henning Makholm (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax and nonsense. And I'm not keen to visit their website. Has anybody tried? Looking at Google, the amount of words "hacked" and "warez" gives me that "stay away" message. For this reason, I'm removing the links from the article. I really don't trust them. Anyone who's visited and found it's kosher, feel free to reinstate. Greg Tyler (t • c) 11:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Chubenko[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced BLP. Claim of notability is slim and unverified. Promotional. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if she's a "drop-dead gorgeous" break-dancing political scientist that models bikinis and speaks twelve languages! Matt Deres (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though google-searching for "Sonya Chubenko" + "Billy Joe" (the name of that famous Greek fashion house she models for) produces exactly one Google hit, which used to win you a prize or something. How much of this article is a hoax I can't tell. But it looks like lots of stuff is made up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that that one hit is our very own page on her doesn't detract at all from my admiration for this drop-dead gorgeous break-dancing political scientist that models bikinis and speaks twelve languages. Matt Deres (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable at the risk of people thinking I don't enjoy drop-dead-gorgeous Greek fashion model-actress-breakdancer-writer-singer-political scientists fuzzy510 (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional South Park species[edit]

List of fictional South Park species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of almost entirely one-shot fictional characters in South Park. Written in universe, mostly without sources. Notability certainly in question as almost none of these characters appeared more than once. (Also, isn't it original research to call some of these "species" if only one exists?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green welly brigade[edit]

Green welly brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyosei[edit]

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

Non notable original research. Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be largely original research. --DAJF (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep possibly notable, esp. due to the connection with Canon (company); an actual concept and more than a dicdef per gsearch, but this article has significant issues. JJL (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator. Oda Mari (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is the Canon version of Corporate social responsibility, made their corporate philosophy. Therefore, one may want to elaborate on the Canon version in either the CSR article or in the Canon article, if properly sourced and summarized, but I am not interested in doing it myself. Kyōsei (共生) is a Japanese word meaning 1. "To live together", 2. symbiosis. Because of its first meaning, it is often used in the context of discussions like, for eg. "how human kind shall cope with the global warming of the Earth", and that's likely why you'll get hits on googling 共生. --Mantokun (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of what DAJF, Oda Mari and Mantokun have written, unless the article is edited to add sources showing that the concept goes beyond one company's slogan for its social-responsibility program. Fg2 (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Central Local School District. MBisanz talk 00:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairview Elementary School (Sherwood, OH)[edit]

Fairview Elementary School (Sherwood, OH) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An average elementary school, with no demonstration of notability. There's no school district article into which this can be merged. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna Jacobson[edit]

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

Long service and sad death, yes, but local newspapers mentioning her doth not general notability make. Ironholds (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. From the article, I can derive that she was a cop, and she and her husband died while drunk in a DUI accident on a motorcycle - and the investigation cost US$50K. That's not at all notable, and this article is an obituary for a couple of dead DUIs. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reading the entry, I can envision it somehow being sourced in a manner to show notability, but I'm not seeing it here. DSZ (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete <300 g-hits, mostly to Facebook, Classmates and other memorials. Sad, but not notable. Matt Deres (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Dennis the kitty cat, I would just like to say you are very disrespectful towards the issue, towards the family and you act like you are above us in the sense that you have never made a mistake. When you serve as an officer for 20 years, get a leadership award named after you and become the first high-rank officer for your gender/race/age etc, holler at me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opcrm (talk • contribs) 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not here to debate morality or respect, I'm here to debate notability. My commentary still stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your morality and respect are inadequate, there is no debate. This is notable. Only one person is the first female commander in APD history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opcrm (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was very much a local incident, and the article is essentially a memorial to the subject. There is no assertion of notability. Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Just because something is local doesn't mean it isn't notable. Shauna Jacobson's life and achievments are more notable than most peoples'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opcrm (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq–Malta relations[edit]

Iraq–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating:

Iraq–Singapore relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cyprus–Iraq relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iraq–Serbia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As precedent shows, we don't need an article on every one of 203C2 = 20503 possible Country X-Country Y relations if nothing has really taken place between them. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh Serbia may have some notability, but not sure yet. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile-Colombia relations, having mutual embassies is not grounds for inclusion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if, I have provided some third party sources that can prove a Military relationship as well as political. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, but that information needs to be included in the article... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that completely and I assure you in the very near future the Singapore article will have a nive re-write. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now I emphasize we also keep the Serbia article as well per some new sources I have found Fox News article on "Multimillion Arms Deal", Article on Military ties, Defense news article on closer relations, Article on "Military Alliance", Article on Defense ties so I urge a strong keep on the Serbia-Iraq and reiterate my support for the Singapore-Iraq. Anyone who wants me to do a re-write as I have done on others is welcome to ask and I can easily incorporate these. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I took Serbia off the list. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It still has its article for deletion banner on that page. The one who added it, must be the one to remove it, or its still listed. Dream Focus 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Iraq-Malta relations and Cyprus-Iraq relations; Keep the other two – per all of the above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Iraq-Malta and Cyprus-Iraq pages. Keep the Iraq-Singapore one, due to the evidence found by Marcusmax (although this needs to be added to the article). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Iraq-Malta and Cyprus-Iraq, provided no additional information turns up. Keep: Serbia-Iraq and Iraq-Singapore per above.Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed Iraq-Singapore relations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both remaining nominees, as no hint of notability has been shown for either. - Biruitorul Talk 01:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sure how many nominees remain. But as far as i'm concerned, they're all deserving of deletion. In all cases, no notable relationship identified via any reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you search in the native languages of those two nations, you could surely find news articles about the relationship between them. Is it realistic to assume there has been absolutely no news coverage about trade or diplomatic meetings for decades? If we knew the names of all the big newspapers in those two countries, and did a proper search, surely we'd find something. Dream Focus 01:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, the old "sources might exist, we just need some enterprising Maltese to go to the local Birkirkara archives of In-Nazzjon, merrily poring over back issues until he finds disparate bits about ancient foreign ministers' visits to Baghdad and comes back here, gleefully expanding this article" - nice thought, but let's be serious. - Biruitorul Talk 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least Iraq-Malta, which seems really hopeless.--Aldux (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Nothing more to say than X has an embassy/mission in Y, which fails WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ClearPoint Credit Counseling Solutions[edit]

ClearPoint Credit Counseling Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Borderline advertising for a non-notable company Alexius08 (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Very much spammy, even with the news articles. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, tone is promotional, notability is borderline, although I'd be happy to take another look if the article is re-written. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Harry Potter series[edit]

The Wikibook Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter has a page on the topic of: Timeline
Chronology of the Harry Potter series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is chiefly an original compilation of plot summary. This is a meticulously researched, meticulously annotated timeline based entirely on primary sources or unreliable secondary sources. Save for a fansite, the Harry Potter Lexicon, when an independent source is even acknowledged, it is used as grist for conjecture. Character ages (and thus birthdates) are a common example of this. The rest of the time, this is slicing the sheet of the plot into ever-tinier tiles, and arranging them into an intricate mosiac, when the plot of the novels is already covered, in great detail, in the articles on the novels themselves as well as the articles on every single character as well as the articles on every single place as well as the articles on the setting as a whole.

This goes vastly beyond summarizing the plot. This covers every single thing that happens, be it "shown" on the page or implied by events, mixing the obvious with the conjectural willy-nilly. One-off jokes or minor factoids from lesser works are mixed in with major plot points, with no distinction between the two. No attempt is made to place this in the context of the real world, other than occasionally pointing out which work of fiction an obscure factoid came from in order to quell fan disputes.

A pair of similar, now-deleted timelines are the Buffyverse and Metal Gear timelines, both of which were meticulously researched from the works of fiction, arranged into wholly original compositions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the closer - Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars‎. As there has been much discussion covering similar topics on two separate AfD pages, in order to determine clear consensus, I ask that the closer take all the comments from both discussions into consideration of both closures. - jc37 17:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Isn't there somewhere we could send this? Isn't there a Harry Potter wiki somewhere out there? It definitely doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but I would only support deletion if there's nothing that could be done with this work. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, delete as not useful to another project, as well as clearly being a failure of policies for articles here. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful information into Harry Potter (series), then redirect and/or transwiki to either Wikia or a sister project. Sceptre (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no referenced info to merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I refuse to believe it can't be referenced, though. The HPL, for example, was vetted by Rowling herself as accurate enough for her to double check plot minutae. Sceptre (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then just add it to another article once you find the reference. Dumping a bunch of unverfied stuff somewhere is no help, but if it can be verified, just use that source for a different article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for failing WP:NOR and WP:NOT#PLOT. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any reliable part of this article would be a complete duplication of an existing source. In this case it would be better to point to the source (Lexicon) rather than trying to copy all its material.- Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per most-excellent nom argument. Eusebeus (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PLOT and the opening argument. Dalejenkins | 09:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per very thorough, policy-based nomination.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A summary article like this can rely on the primary works--but it doesnt have to , for the are multiple suitable secondary works by now. It is not affected by NOT PLOT, which refers only to the total coverage at WP of a topic, not individual articles. I think usefulness is a reasonable consideration for summary articles like this, though not , of course, more generally for articles about more specific things. The reason it's useful, as it seems not to be clear to the nom., is that the individual novels reveal various parts of the backstory, and having it in one place is helpful. True, it does go into the rest, but even here, the significance of events in the early books is elucidate or even changed in the later. The other deletions were wrong as well, and to the extent they are precedent, should be reversed. If one want to follow them, one could differentiate this as even more notable set of works. That material is available elsewhere is not a reason to omit it here. Even that its available on the web in more detail is not reason to omit it here. We're a general encyclopedia and appropriately have less detail than more specialized sources, such as the one AMIB mentioned. Butt o omit everything in that source could equally be used as an argument for eliminating all the articles on the series. DGG (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So what content in this article is sourced to a reliable, independent source?
    What content in this article isn't plot summary or conjecture? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just because there is plot-related information on a page, doesn't mean that it should be deleted. In addition, as long as (among other things), there is no synthesis involved, primary sources are indeed acceptable sources, per WP:OR. While there are those who may not like it, the information would seem to be "notable", especially if this list page is considered a "spin-out" of the main article. Noting, of course, that there is currently no consensus to delete spin-out articles in this way. (As Man in Black knows, I think. Per the last several polls, and the ongoing debate at WP:NOT concerning WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:Notability (fiction), among other places.) I have only ever seen one argument that goes beyond "IDONTWANTITHERE" concerning "in-universe" information in articles (by User:Hiding - which was, I believe, to be wary of fair use/copyright infringement). So if you have information concerning that, great, let's discuss it. Otherwise, there is simply no reason grounded in policy for why this information should be excluded. - jc37 01:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What info here isn't plot summary or conjecture? Certainly just because there is plot summary in an article is no reason to delete, but there is no content that is not plot summary here...
    ...except for the conjecture. According to what authority are these the exact ages of the characters whose exact ages are never given? According to whom do we decide that when there's a contradiction, this interpretation is canon instead of that one? From what authority do the evaluative claims in this article originate? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything not explicitly stated in the source (which can then be referenced as a primary source), or stated by "experts" in secondary sources (which can also potentially be referenced), or possibly even information recounted in tertiary sources (which can also potentially be referenced), may be removed as potential WP:OR. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that something unsourced (in the case of non-BLP pages) needs to be immediately deleted. A bit of fact checking should be all that's needed. (And repeating the comment about how AfD isn't cleanup...) - jc37 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So that leaves us only with plot summary already present in other articles, or trivial historical facts not necessary for understanding any of the various published works. You can't argue "It's not all conjecture!" when all that's left when you strip away the conjecture is redundant plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think that's the weak point in your argument. The definition of "trivia". And no fact was "minor" while the books were being published. Everyone was trying to assemble facts and information from the text. And even though the series is now "finished", and many things hidden are now revealed, at Wikipedia, we're supposed to keep in mind that not everyone may have read the text, yet.
    And, I'm not sold on the "duplicative information" argument. We duplicate information all over Wikipedia. There are quite a few articles on quantum mechanics that immediately come to mind.
    And isn't that how Template:main is supposed to be used? Have some information here, then expand upon it there. Due to WP:SIZE, among other things.
    As an aside, since we (and others) are discussing similar topics on two separate AfD pages, I think to fairly determine consensus, the closer may need to take both into consideration of their closure. I'll place a note about that shortly. - jc37 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a justification to copy every single story detail onto Wikipedia. We summarize, and the perspective of history is an advantage. With this perspective, we can summarize the plots of these novels the way we summarize the plot of every single other novel on Wikipedia, instead of taking the plot of all of the novels plus some minor books plus a family tree sold in a charity auction(!) and stirring it into a big stew of random factoids chosen for their importance to the fictional universe and not the one that my cat lives in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per jc37 and DGG. This is an extension of the Harry Potter article. Would anyone question the real world significance of the base article? In a paper article this would be a section of a huge Harry Potter article. In Wikipedia, where we have unlimited room, we can have subsidiary articles about subsidiary subjects like this. And where is it better to point outside Wikipedia than to bring the information here after a thorough putting into our own words? We are building a free storehouse of all human knowledge, not a referral service to other sources. Other problems are amenable to sourcing and writing. And with the notability of Harry Potter beyond question sourcing and rewriting should not be a problem. Cheers Dlohcierekim 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is questioning the notability of the base article. Instead, people are questioning whether we need the plot redundantly repeated and arranged in this way. Wikipedia has unlimited room but not unlimited scope, and our scope does not include original compositions or endlessly repeated plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot repetition, and possibly original research at best. Articles like this are better suited for fan wiki's, not Wikipedia. Harry Potter is notable, but when content is just repetitive and overlapping like this... it's not within the scope of Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to remark on this comment. "Articles like this are better suited for " ... place/web site/publication/group of people ... ", not Wikipedia." This is true for every single article at Wikipedia, at least for somebody. Also, every content in Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual replication of some source that is (hopefully) believed to be factual correct and as unbiased as possible. But this is also what an encyclopedia is for.. an aggregation of verified/verifiable and reliable information that already exist. The question is "What subjects the encyclopedia tries to cover?", which determines what should be included in it and what not. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and others.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent article upon a notable topic for which there are numerous sources. As for the nominator's hectoring repetition of the point, "What info here isn't plot summary or conjecture?", this is easily refuted by reading the article as the first 5 paragraphs are neither plot summary nor conjecture. Has some editor has improved the article since it was nominated or did the nominator not get past the title? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the first five paragaphs, and it's a rambling, awful lead filled with references that cherry-pick off-hand mentions in various publications that have nothing to do with this timeline. This simply says that the Harry Potter novels are set in the real world with a fantastic overlay. This is a pseudonymous author with an entirely different timeline cited simply to note that days of the week aren't always correct. This is a BBC article being cited simply to note that one of the obscure primary sources that this list is founded upon actually exists. And from there on out, it's all works of fiction, HPL, or the occasional other fansite.
    All of the hits in that search are books that use "Harry Potter" and the English words "timeline" or "chronology." But, hey, super-keen thanks for accusing me of not reading the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It now seems that you are misreading it by selectively ignoring the parts that don't fit your argument. But we're discussing the whole article here, not just parts of it, and so your point fails. Please retract these fallacious repetitions or shall I rebut them each separately with similar tiresome repetition?
    Sorry. You'll have to actually refute my arguments, not merely threaten to refute them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of references, and this is a notable series, that spreads across many books and films, and other media(games and such). A timeline is perfectly valid for series such as these. Very useful and encyclopedic information to look up, if you had a question or an interest in such things. Dream Focus 17:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing but Harry Potter's plot sourced primarily from primary sources or unreliable secondary sources. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are referring to the Lexicon, you are mistaken. This is authoritative, as discussed by this article in the Montreal Gazette and Vancouver Sun: "Rowling herself says she’s been known “to sneak into an Internet caf while out writing and check a fact (at www.hp-lexicon.org).” At her own site (www.jkrowling.com), she calls the Lexicon “a website for the dangerously obsessive: my natural home.”" These newspapers summarise this authoritative timeline and this demonstrates both the accuracy and the notability of this material. There is no substance or evidence to support your assertions so please retract them. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a newspaper article that mentions HPL as one of several sites to read to catch up for the last Harry Potter novel, and excerpts the exact same timeline this article is chiefly based on. The fansite is lent some credence by being cited by the Montreal Gazette, but we're still at parroting a self-published theory of how to cut up and rearrange a plot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be preferable to you if I were to support its deletion saying only that "[t]his is nothing but Harry Potter's plot"? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from what I got from the discussion so far, is that it is about whether or not this subject should be included in Wikipedia. Since I didn't hear a statement that says something like "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia about XYZ" and by doing that excluding certain topics and subjects, I'd say keep it. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that does not include original research or non-notable theories or redundant plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not original research, everything referenced from a primary source. And where does it say in any wikipedia rules that you aren't suppose to have redundant plot summaries? Dream Focus 00:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interpreting primary sources in an original way is original research, and "This is how the timeline fits together regardless of the contractions" is an original claim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious synthesis and original research from primary sources. We don't do these here. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep adequately sourced by the texts themselves and essential for a WP user to make sense of the large family of HP-related articles spread across this site. JJL (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The timeline isn't exactly convoluted. The novels go in order of release, save a few overlapping flashback scenes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Naturally no problem transwikifying to an appropriate HP wiki. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous closely related AfD's: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter (delete), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 6, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter (second nomination) (keep), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (2nd nomination) (no consensus)

  • Delete, purely plot summary, while we already have plenty of plot summary for the Harry Potter novels in their separate articles and the character pages. Adding info on how the plot summary was achieved does not constitute real-world coverage of the chronology, only background. Fails WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyvio. We are quite clearly in breach of WP:NFC. Specifically:

2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

3.
  1. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
  2. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

  • It doesn't get much simpler than that. Hiding T 12:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions: First, I'm not sure how that applies here. (I can only guess atm.) Would you explain? And also, I'm sure I missed it somewhere, but would you please link to the copy in File namespace?
I strongly support Chronologies (for the various reasons noted above). However, if we're in violation of NFC, I'll likely switch to delete on those grounds. - jc37 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cut and paste as properly as I'd like. The first mistakle a lot of people make is in assuming that non-free applies only to images. It actually applies to all non-free content. A plot is non-free content. That's how it applies. We're basically infringing upon the commercial opportunities a copyright holder has in exploiting their work to produce such a chronology and sell it. We're giving it away for free, basically. Now, we can use non-free content minimally, so we can use points within the chronology in relevant articles, but groupoing it together in one article to show the timeline is not minimal usage. So you can say in an article on the character Harry Potter that he got a scar on his head at this point, that's minimal usage. The minimal extent is only to use as much of the plot as is needed to illustrate or facilitate understanding for a reader. And finally, non-free content must be encyclopedic and meet content standards. So it needs to be in keeping with the manual of style, and with Wikipedia:Non-free content, which notes that it is illegal (among other things) to reproduce or make derivative works of copyrighted works without legal justification. The key point here is derivative works, which are defined as being an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work. The only legal justification we have for making derivitaive works is that of fair use, but that involves demonstrating transformation. We fail here somewhat because what we have created isn't new. Now it can be argued that WIkipedia might possibly get away with publishing this stuff, but that's not the point. The point is that we have commercial reusers, so it isn't enough that we can get away with it. On Wikipedia, our goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as any content granting the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. So that's the basis for my thinking. Hiding T 22:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem on the paste (especially since we're both responding in two separate discussions).
The key sentence seems to be: "...but groupoing it together in one article to show the timeline is not minimal usage." - Are we certain that this is the case? I mean no slight whatsoever, but rather want to get to the heart of this. Because what you're saying would then seem to apply to geneological tables (family trees) as well as quite a few other lists. So it sounds like we really need to know if this is legally accurate (and since IANAL, and sincerely don't know, but would like to find out). So, next stop User talk:Mike Godwin? - jc37 02:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense would it be like a family tree? You can't copyright a family tree, since it is material within the public domain. Showing the timeline is not minimal usage to my mind, because the point of the article is to show the timeline, not to discuss the impact of the work. Our whole usage of copyright material rests upon a fair use defense, which means we have to offer critical commentary and use copyrighted material when it is vital to the points being discussed. But yes, this has applied to lists in the past, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FHM lists. Also see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4. This article could, with teh offending timeline removed, likely stay if the consensus is that the first two sections are not in violation of WP:OR. But the timeline is a copyvio. Hiding T 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stricken, not so sure of my ground now, actually. I've left a few remarks, but given points made at WT:NOT, I've made a u-turn. I think it probably is a matter for teh foundation. I reckon we should probably just avoid copyright paranoia and let the board take the lead on this issue. They'll be able to source better opinions than mine. Hiding T 14:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been asked to expand on this, so I will. First point is that WP:NFCC specifically states it applies only to "copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files", so it does not extend to text as I mistakenly assert above. The second point is that the level to which copyright law covers specific um, "fictional facts", is unclear. Plot itself is not subject to copyright, but creative expression is. Basically, the only place that will ever determine whether we breach copyright or not is a court of law, and ultimately it is therefore a call for the board to make rather than for me to make. The board reserve the right to take down any material which they do not believe would be defended in court using fair use defense criteria, so I think they have to take the lead on on summarising and infringing fictional works which are subject to copyright. I retract my assertions as flawed and perhaps subject to copyright paranoia. Hiding T 15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry, this is original research. Very well executed and painstakingly compiled, I'm sure, but still original research. Yintaɳ  22:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Decided to strike my vote above for a number of reasons. First, Dlohcierekim's comments on OR below. He's got a point. Second, the ever-increasing number of similar compilations and lists that the WP community apparently is so eager to keep. Like this one, for example. I mean, compared to that the Potter chronology is almost useful. This is not a "keep" vote. I'm just striking my contribution and ask for it to be ignored. Yintaɳ  21:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on OR and expansion of my rationale for keep. Or is it a well cited chronology? NO OR exists to keep people from publishing their theses here in the guise of an article. This not the case here. The creators do not compile and synthesize information to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly in the sources. They do not cite themselves. This is not OR, the use of primary sources does not make it such. "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Once again, we are building a storehouse off all human knowledge. Dlohcierekim 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion of rationale for keep-- do not merge. Merger would unnecessarily reduce the amount of information on the subject. As we are not a paper encyclopedia, we don't need to truncate/sacrifice/butcher in order to cram into a handy Funk and Wagnalls sized volume. Though I must say my Funk and Wagnalls looks handsome in my bookshelf. Dlohcierekim 14:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion that this is the chronology of the series and bugger all the contradictions is not a conclusion stated explicitly in the sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the article make this claim? It acknowledges the contradictions, but I don't see it trying to explain them away. DHowell (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It explains that such-and-such facts contradict with the timeline, then proceeds to offer the timeline that contradicts with them anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merely a massive amount of plot tidbits, in-universe details, and trivia organized into a giant list. Absolutely doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are independent reliable sources covering this subject. For example, this article from Book magazine has substantial coverage on the timeline. And this article from the Waco Tribune-Herald comments on the timeline as presented by the Harry Potter Lexicon. Further, why isn't the Harry Potter Lexicon considered a reliable source? Because it's a website? That isn't the standard for judging sources as reliable. The site is acknowledged by reliable sources as well as the Rowling herself to be reliable. Also, "original compilation" is not the same as "original research": Every single article in Wikipedia is an "original compilation" of information from sources, if it isn't a copy of a public domain source or a copyright violation. And I don't see this article making any original conclusions. Contrary to repeated assertions by those arguing to delete, I don't see any explanations of contradictions in this article that aren't backed up by sources. Name one, please. DHowell (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not considered a reliable source because it's a single author's selfpublished work. If he'd published it as a book through one of the publish-on-demand publishers it wouldn't be any different. As for the cited sources, they're addressed above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Haven't actually commented on that Book magazine review. What part of this is a timeline or commentary on a timeline or has anything to do with timelines? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A topic which has books written about it almost certainly should have an article here. Meets WP:N. A merge would perhaps be reasonable other than the size of the articles involved would make it a disaster.Hobit (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which books? If you could point them out, it'd probably change things a lot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some of the basic information listed under Events could probably be sourced directly to the novels or the odd statement made by the author. However everything in the sections on the Timeline basis and Contradictions appears to be original research. Starting from the first sentence there are already problems "The official timeline is rooted in a date cited in Rowling’s second book" - what makes the timeline official - it appears to have been pieced together by Wikipedia editors not published by anyone who holds the copyright to the books, their content or their characters? From Wikipedia:No original research: "an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Pretty much everything that frames the list of events is based on interpretation of some form or another and without that framework the page is just a list of plot details - not an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Already deleted by User:Dank55 per WP:CSD#G7 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ray[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Not on IMDB or Allmovie, and Google search for "Sean Ray" "Ammar Abraham" results in 42 sites, while "Sean Ray" film does not show any relevant results in the first five pages. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 00:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability; seems to be one of those amateur films occasionally posted on WP by the creators. Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-delete. Creator/only-contributor has blanked the page repeatedly. DMacks (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Delete Two Sicilies and Keep Venetism MBisanz talk 23:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sicilies independence movement[edit]

Two Sicilies independence movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable independence movements, neither has received significant coverage in Italy or abroad. Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No opinion on Two Sicilies independence movement. --Checco (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete much information about history, only irrilevant information about activities and notability --Invitamia (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it presents the same issues:

Venetism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment: when did ever Venetism (which is, by the way, a neologism) receive as much attention as those independece movement you just named, either in the international or even local press? I'm sorry to say this, but I feel that being veneto yourself, you're a little biased.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the regional press it is constantly mentioned (Venetismo, Venetisti) and I think that Wikipedia needs an article about this movement, that encompasses parties, groups, movements and people. Venetist parties are quite successful in the Venetian political arena and Venetist ideas are often at the basis of Venetian regional policies (think only to the law defending Venetian language, that even instituted a "Holiday of the Venetian People" (http://www.linguaveneta.it/normative.html). --Checco (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could move the article to Venetian indipendentism, Venetian autonomism or Autonomism in Veneto, but, as it is obvious to anyone following Venetian and Italian politics that there is a big movement supporting autonomy for Veneto, I don't see how that article could be deleted. In Italian it is called Venetismo, so we could even name the article Venetismo, but I personally don't like this entry as this is en.Wiki. --Checco (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lucifero4

Question Which movement If you mean the Two Sicilies one, see my edit below. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the movment exist as you can see in their website [45] I can also remeber the opposition of Neoborbonici to the decision to repeal the exile of the male member of the house of Savoy.[46]
  • Delete Two Sicilies movement -- I can find nothing in Gbooks or GScholar mentioning it, everything in a general search seems Wikipedia based. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After checking a bit, I am tempted to start have started an article on Two Silicies autonomy and independence movements (note plural: there are several of them). But delete this Two Sicilies article - the only sources given are for cultural associations that do not seem to be seeking to re-establish the Bourbon kingdom, just trying to revive awareness of past glories. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good article, but I'm not sure that Two Silicies autonomy and independence movements is a good title for at least two reasons: 1) most of the groups listed are not movements but parties; 2) most of the parties listed, notably the Movement for Autonomies and Sicilian Alliance, never speak of autonomy for the "Two Sicilies" (they mainly support the autonomy of Sicily) and "Two Sicilies" is not used at all in present times (also the Southern autonomists prefer "South" or "Mezzogiorno"). That's why I propose to change the title of the article created by Aymatth2 because it is currently incorrect and unencyclopedic. --Checco (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah - not a great title. But it is a work in progress, just started, after this AfD tweaked my interest. I am thinking of adding more on early (1870-1890) rebellions in the Mezzogiorno, maybe more on the 1942-1950 movement. Basically show better the evolution from unification to today. Any feedback/help welcome. But lets do that on the new article's talk, or we risk totally confusing this AfD discussion! Aymatth2 (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely Venetism is not a candidate for deletion? Lots of citations. Better to keep the two discussions separate. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Venentism. No ideas on the other. I'm having a hard time finding English sources, but I found enough to confirm the idea exists. There really isn't a lot, but there do appear to be political parties that are notable and involved. Hobit (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Venetism; delete Two Sicilies; while Venetism is notable, I don't see any reason that Two Sicilies is either. The prose in the latter is better written than the former, but it's chock full of weasel words and unreferenced facts that it would need salting and restarting to become neutral. Sceptre (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Splitt Venetism out of this AfD, the two clearly do not have identical, inherently linked notability and as such they should be treated sepeartely. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Venetism; there are plenty of reliable third-party sources here so I'm surprised it's even been included under this - totally distinct - Two Sicilies independence movement AfD... ColdmachineTalk 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to split: too different to be judged together.--93.45.129.131 (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Alhusseini[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable and article is a linkfarm. Queries as to notability are met with resistance from a stable of single-use editors that suggest possible WP:AUTOBIO issues. — AjaxSmack 01:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All references are either or trivial passing mentions or from unsuitable sources. Subject appears not to be notable Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article definitely suffers from a number of problems, but, like linkfarm, they can be remedied without trashing the whole article. Alhusseini meets the requirements of WP:BIO: "she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." While none of the reliably sourced coverage is terribly in depth, I think the breadth does establish notability, especially with articles turning to her as something of a spokesperson for Arabs/Palestinians/Islamic women.[47][48][49][50] And I don't know how non-reliable sources factor into this discussion, but I think this article in the Militant Islam Monitor, while clearly not an RS, buttresses the argument for her notability. -- Irn (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her role,as given the thearticle and supported by references,is notable. DGG (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her role as what? The first sentence says she "is a Saudi Arab American of Palestinian origin born in Jerusalem." If having a birthplace, nationality, and ethnic origin are notable characteristics, we could have over 6 billion bio articles at Wikipedia. — AjaxSmack 01:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Dylanfromthenorth, only trivial mention in sources, or no reliable secondary sources. As it stands, I would support delelte.WackoJackO 01:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per User:Dylanfromthenorth. No additional evidence of notability has been presented. — AjaxSmack 01:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Salvageable, meets notability guidelines. — Jake Wartenberg 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (weak) Delete Irn's list notwithstanding, I'm just not convinced of notability. She gets mentioned in newspapers, but so do the thousands of other good folks who head up charitable causes; I don't think that meets the bar for notability. Matt Deres (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are a few profiles from various websites sufficient for notability? Of the eight references given, the prominent ones only mention her in passing; it's the one by her organisation and the other minor sources that pay much attention to her. I don't see significant coverage from reliable sources here. Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete (weak) She falls into a large category of people who are notable not because of their personal accomplishments (there are lots of skilled professional child advocates and welfare workers in the world) as because of the intense interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict. A child welfare advocate from Thailand or Bolivia would not have a Wikipedia page, but, neither would she have bloggers and online magazines celebrating and attacking her. Mentions in "real" publications only mention her in passing, regarding her involvement with a charter school for Arabic language instruction. Perhaps the judicious thing to do is to remove the article until she attracts more than passing media mentions.Historicist Historicist (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 | Talk 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FC Ansung[edit]

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

This team is an amateur team with no notable accomplishments. They aren't a member of any league as far as I can tell. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence that this club is notable. JJL (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — Jake Wartenberg 00:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses everyone! I'm also nominating, for the same reason:

All of these teams seem to have been added after they appeared on this page. It lists all results of teams in South Korean football that year. Note that although it says these are 'third level' teams, there is now an amateur league of which none of these teams is part, as well as two higher professional leagues, a reserve team league and a university team league. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that while some of these teams have competed in the Korean FA Cup, none of them have got as far as the first round Stu.W UK (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no guidance available on the notability of non-English teams. It was my opinion that the fact that (as far I have been able to find out) none of these teams competes in any form of league competition trumps their preliminary round KFA Cup games. It is quite possible that some of these teams may only have ever played a single game- I don't think that gives them notability.Stu.W UK (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. There's no assertion of notability on the articles themselves I've done some quick Google searches and apart from a couple of mentions on RSSSF, there's precious little out there to be found - most importantly, like Stu W I can't find any indication of what league they actually play in. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Zinchuk[edit]

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

This page seems nothing more than an advertisement with out any claim of notability. It was probably created by the artist himself. Justinmeister (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article doesn't appear to have improved since the last AfD. I went and looked for sources myself, and found nothing other than the artist's own website and a Youtube video. BecauseWhy? (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious indeed. His presence on the TV rivals that of Viagra and Levitra combined but reliable bio sources in Russian are as scarce as in English. NVO (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: trivial coverage, possible self-promotion, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm more than a little hesitant over deleting articles which rely on non-English sources: they may, in fact, be entirely reliable & clearly notable outside of our own limited knowledge. I noticed that this person had an article on ru.wikipedia, so while I know no Russian I still decided to see what that might tell me. (Also, I made use of Babelfish.) First off, the article was not based on the en.wikipedia one, which is a good sign. However, the paragraphs I selected at random don't give me much confidence: the article sounds almost as if Zinchuk's publicist wrote it. The lead paragraph describes him as "an associated professor of the international Academy of Sciences of the Republic of San Marino, docent at Moscow State University" & having made arrangements of classical works by "I. S. Bach, N. Paganini, M. Glinki, G. Verdi, G. Gershwin" (George Gershwin was a classical composer?) I'd like someone who is fluent in Russian &/or familiar with the ways of ru.wikipedia to provide a report on that article before we decide to delete this one. -- llywrch (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That may be referring to Rhapsody In Blue, which is technically not classical, but is an orchestral piece and so is frequently lumped in there. — Gwalla | Talk 22:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to optimism. MBisanz talk 09:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abundance mentality[edit]

Abundance mentality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Appears to be a dictionary entry.--Levalley (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like just another example of made-up consultant-speak. If it's part of a specific program (7 habits?), then it should be mentioned there, perhaps with a redirect. If it's not part of a specific program, we need some kind of expansion beyond the dictionary definition, provided it's even notable enough. Matt Deres (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. The term appears frequently on the web and in business and self-help books. It is a key term in The Eighth Habit by Seven Habits author S. Covey. Current references include allusion to Seven Habits and work by Covey. Cnilep (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is there any evidence that such is the origin of the term? Otherwise, if he just used it, its not an appropriate merge. DGG (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest print usage I can find is in the book What Matters Most (2000) written by Hyrum Smith and published by FranklinCovey. FranklinCovey is also the publisher of Seven Habits (1989) and The Eighth Habit (2004), and was co-founded by Smith and Covey. The term appears to have been coined by some combination Smith, Covey and their associates. Cnilep (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have an earlier one, Carolyn Simpson in High Performance through Negotiation, 1996 devotes an entire chapter to it. The Seven Habits book mentioned above covers it, and that is 1990 (Simon & Schuster, it may originally have been self-published, but is far from it now). Google books gets 362 hits for the term, nearly all relevant, and mostly not Smith/Covey. I think that is quite a lot and there are also some hits on Google Scholar. On the strength of that, I am switching to keep. SpinningSpark 19:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hina Patel[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. An article about a self-published author who has received awards from vanity presses Famous Poets Society and the International Library of Poetry. With one exception (Khaasbaat), references are user driven websites. The product of a WP:SPA. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete - Still working on update to information on providing more references and data. Due to time restrictions have not been able to complete needed tasks yet..dmp1572 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.81.25 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An article on Hina Patel, created by Dmp1572, was subject of a speedy delete in November. The reason: section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. In short, it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant. Though the user created this article on Hina Patel more than a month ago, the issue has still not been addressed. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Tata Indicom. MBisanz talk 09:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Indicom photon+[edit]

Tata Indicom photon+ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a minor product of Tata Indicom and should be deleted or merged with the parent article. Anshuk (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as long as it does not become an avert (like it was when created). While "minor" for Tata, it probably has (or will have) more clients, more investment, and more material infrastructrue than many other products featured in Wikipedia --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A local wireless service, referenced to a press release and the product website. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tata Indicom. JJL (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable product, and not significant enough yet for even a merge and redirect. We must be mindful that mere existence is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Dlohcierekim 14:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Poison Arrows[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:BAND, speedy was declined because they claim to be signed to a blue-link label - enough to defeat a speedy deletion, but not sufficent to meet WP:BAND. Also, no sources, no context, not much of an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This needs some investigating. The press release says that the band has been "featured in a number of publications including Blender, XLR8R, Skyscraper, Maxim, Chicago Reader, Time Out Chicago, Rhapsody.com, Rcrdlbl.com, Ghetto Blaster, Livedaily.com, Popmatters.com, and Emusic.com". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough coverage exists to demonstrate notability. Here's coverage from PopMatters: [56], [57].--Michig (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LIFE Healthcare Group[edit]

LIFE Healthcare Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails WP:CORP speedy had been declined before, so I am bringing it here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete no indication of passing WP:CORP. Changing to Keep per indication of notability added. Thanks, Chiliad22! FlyingToaster 17:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a Lexis-Nexis search and got a bunch of results, but about a different "Life Healthcare Group". About 500 results in the past few years for that name and its former name, all about the company in South Africa, which was very recently on the country's major stock exchange and is apparently the second largest health care company in the country. I took the unorthodox step of rewriting the article to be about the South Africa company, as I got 0 results for the Dubai one, which seems non-notable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that explains it. I'm fine just changing this article to be about the South African organization and closing this AfD accordingly. FlyingToaster 19:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is basically a new article now. Maybe leave it open though in case anyone objects to what I did? I'm not really sure though. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why this needed to be relisted... no one objected to the rewrite in 7 days. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Close - The article is not about the same subject as when nominated for deletion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_14&oldid=1142646129"