Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 20

< 19 December	21 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator . No outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Proctor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP on composer failing to establish notability and with very few sources (in which the composer is only mentioned in passing). PROD was contested. Jubilee♫clipman 23:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless article can be improved with references and evidence of notability. --Deskford (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now undecided. New links added by Kleinzach suggest he may be notable. --Deskford (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful to the discussion if those asking for deletion could address each of the sources in the article and explain how it is invalid for the purposes of establishing notability per WP:CREATIVE criterion 3. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Not so much WP:CREATIVE that I was meaning as WP:GNG significant coverage. I'm not sure the three sources actually address this composer in enough detail nor are any of them primarily about him. Also, one of these sources is only tertiary and is not about this composer: of its self this is not a problem but in this case, given the fact that both the Times and the Globe articles only mention him as a composer who happens to have written for a particular instrument, I don't feel there are enough secondary sources about this composer to back it up. With more work, though (adding actual quotes from the articles would be a good start) notability could be perhaps estabilshed. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability for musicians and composers is covered in Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Klein zach 02:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More - I hadn't spotted the link at the bottom to the Serpent website specifically about him. This does help establish notability in his field, actually. There might be more to say on him after all... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added enough info to convince myself (at least) that this is worth having. I haven't found any reviews yet, but his music is published and his concerto was played by the Boston Pops Orchestra. He is notable in a very small field, but nevertheless IMO notable. --Klein zach 00:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — Notable, but the article needs more citations to verify even more his notability. Airplaneman ^talk 02:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw[edit]

Withdraw AfD Proposal - Instead work on the article. More citations and sources have been added since this discussion started which establish notability. No other BLP policies are infringed. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterscapes Kelowna[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any significant coverage of this article to satisfy WP:RS. I see sites listing the building, but see nothing as far as an assertion of notability goes. ArcAngel (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the sources covering this are either "Come to Waterscapes!" or related to the subject or totally irrelevant (e.g. "...waterscapes. Kelowna..."), and without significant coverage, we can't have a viable article. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Perolinka (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Geschichte (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seawater Greenhouse[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Non-notable~~ Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - admin to close, pls. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two awards, cited from independent websites, and the Guardian article are sufficient evidence of notability. (The separate article on Sahara Forest Project should however be merged in, unless and until it has its own coverage.) - Fayenatic (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per awards and source. Alison22 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are operating examples:Tenerife Corella (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InDefero[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another minor player in the business of supervising computer programmers: code and project management software. No notability shown at all. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find anything either. Pcap ping 01:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nope. Perolinka (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator withdrew. Airplaneman ^talk 01:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kayavak (beluga whale)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable whale; redirect and merge relevant info into Shedd Aquarium. Airplaneman ^talk 22:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N: There's tons of coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources about this particular whale, including [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Alison22 (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to have had national (USA) coverage at the time. I found references in the Seattle Times and the Orange County (CA) Register. I added references and categories to the article. If kept, the article should be moved to Kayavak, which is at present a redirect to Shedd Aquarium. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw – At the end of the day, it's better to keep information than dispose of it. The more info the better! :). I will include the following discussion, entitled "Kayavak deletion", that Belugaboy and I had on my talk page:

Hi, Airplaneman, it's Belugaboy535136, the author of Kayavak (beluga whale). Why do you think this whale is insignificant?? Kayavak almost didn't survive!! Have you not read, she became an orphan at five months old?? Forgive me if I'm being too stern, but please, tell me why. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Belugaboy535136 (talk •contribs) 00:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, nice to meet you. Please take a look at Wikipedia's inclusion and notability policies and you'll see why I thought Kayavak the Beluga whale was not notable enough for her own article. I suggested that she have a mention in the article of her aquarium. Although our opinions may differ, I do not think that being in life-threatening situations and losing a parent signify significance and importance in their own right; more information supporting notability has to be provided. As such, the information has been provided, and I will be happy to withdraw my nomination on the grounds that her article be moved to her proper name, Kayavak, not Kayavak (beluga whale). Also, inline citations should be added. Happy editing, Airplaneman ^talk 01:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sakima.Ivy.NET[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PRODUCT requirements as there are no independent sources establishing notability and I can find no Google News history of any mention of this server or its prior identity of sakima.octoraro.org. Ash (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like a history of a non notable email server. Mattg82 (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable email server; per above. Airplaneman ^talk 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aar Maanta[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable musician, badly written unreferenced BLP, possible conflict of interest by the author who wrote it. Can find very few reliable sources. Seems his only claim to fame is that he once performed alongside Graham Coxon. Sure he might be a musician but does than automatically mean we should have articles on every musician!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat}

Keep: Per [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Joe Chill (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what makes any of those sources you rooted out reliable (or credible)? Most of them are Somali blogs. Provide some reliable sources like the The Guardian or the Times which explicitly explain why he is notable and I might change my view. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, they aren't blogs. Hint, click on About on each website. Joe Chill (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe's sources, all of which appear to have the kind of editorial process that we require from sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has been rewritten incorporating the above references. J04n(talk page) 03:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was proved wrong. Couldn#t find a reliable source like BBC. All music as well, that's good enough for me although I still don't think he is really particularly notable.... Thanks for sorting it out. Nomination withdrawn. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Faces)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Places researched are listed on the talk page, with no information found on the actual art or the artist. In addition, the majority of the information regards the actual sculptures and their location seems to be from original research, in contradiction of the rules on original research in Wikipedia. The references given on the page only refer to the building, or the building materials and not the pieces of art themselves. Miyagawa (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting consideration for deletion. The editor who started the article listed places on the Talk page where research was conducted to find out information; however, it seems little beyond two sources were found.

I'm very unclear about the difference of defining something as it exists in reality and verifiable through images versus original resources.

Rather than simply delete this article, it seems that it should more naturally be asked for further research and further thought given to the original research argument.

Finally, I'm unclear as to the argument for deletion of this article. Miyagawa has made a variety of claims related to the notability of this article, all of which I do not understand.

I'm looking forward to hearing a good discussion about the deletion of this article.

This deletion tag should be removed.

Thanks --Richard McCoy (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable, with no prejudice against changing !vote if reliable, non-trivial references can be supplied. I see no reason why every piece of art and sculpture is inherently notable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those references do appear to be both reliable and non-trivial. I'm a little troubled by Dylanfromthenorth's completely subjective decision making in regards to deciding what sculpture is notable. --Richard McCoy (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sculptures are essential elements of the building itself, as documented in referenced sources. Jgmikulay (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a variety of articles discussing plazas, sculpture gardens and memorials on Wikipedia. This article includes secondary sources discussing the plaza (thus, notability) and describes the art. If the issue persists, I suggest a name change focusing on the Plaza, rather than full deletion. HstryQT (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename I would support restructuring the article to concentrate on the plaza, including the faces as one part of the article. Makes more sense to me now than simply throwing away all the work. In addition, should that be done, then the sources become primary sources rather than secondary as they seem to be referencing the plaza rather than the faces. Miyagawa (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tang Soo Do Kyohoe Kwan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable variation of Tang Soo Do taught by single individual with no coverage by reliable, independent sources. Singularity42 (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added the following article, becuase the subject is the sole instructor of this martial art:

Bill Church (Tang Soo Do) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information to consider[edit]

The reason I created Tang Soo Do Kyohoe Kwan was because it is a new style less than one year old, and there was no information about it on Wikipedia. I am a student in said style, so I thought it would be a good idea to create an article. I mentioned in it that Master Bill Church was the head instructor of the style, so I though it best to make an article about him as well. Originally, I was going to make the information about him a section in Tang Soo Do Kyohoe Kwan, but there was so much information that I was turning the article in to one that talked mainly about him instead of the style. The idea that he should have his own article came partly from the fact that there is an article about grand master Hwang Kee. Or maybe Bill Church is not famous enough. But if the articles must be deleted, than so be it. I do not wish to go against Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Paper fork ♠ 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Tang Soo Do Kyohoe Kwan article as a nn new art. As to the instructor, I am inclined to say delete, but is the United States Martial Arts Hall of Fame worth considering? The majority of these are worthless. JJL (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Tang Soo Do Kyohoe Kwan article since it's clearly a non-notable new art. The article on Bill Church is a little trickier, but I'm inclined to say Delete on it, too. The description of him at the U.S. Martial Arts HOF merely says he's the co-founder of a school that has produced over 100 black belts and that he's active in a variety of community kid safety programs. Certainly commendable, but I don't think it shows notability. I don't see evidence of accomplishments that pass the martial arts notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community music education programs[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a list of music educations programs that is simply a directory contrary to WP:NOTDIR. Whpq (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had drastically pruned the previous introduction as it consisted of unencyclopedic and inappropriate personal commentary and did not adhere to a neutral pont of view.[11] Some of the programs listed are not explictly inspired by El Sistema (and may even pre-date it) and their inclusion violates Wikipedia guidelines on original research and synthesis. It equates actual schools such as the Boston Arts Academy and Conservatory Lab Charter School with community programs and the Learning Through Music Curriculum with El Sistema. They are very different. As such this is simply a link farm of loosely connected websites/organizations. The "Mission Statements" listed are copy/pasted from the respective websites which raises copyright issues. Even if deleted, the material will not be 'lost'. The creator had also pasted the article verbatim into El Sistema.[12] It's now removed, but still in the edit history. Note that this was part of a class assignment for Longy School of Music students. See: User:Futureclass. Voceditenore (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Re-include in the article El Sistema. As an article, Community music education programs could actually include anything you like, eg outreach for young people from or within youth clubs, community projects that visit residential homes, every local churches' musical outreach, any university music project that sends the students out into the community etc etc. It is just far too wide a title as it stands to have any meaningful focus that avoids OR and POV. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny O'Mara[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a drink made up one day. No references. No relevant Google hits. Nothing to support notability. Very troubling is the sentence "The notoriety of the Johnny O’Mara came to fruition primarily due to word of mouth." (which was removed just as I started to write these comments). Singularity42 (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, unless, of course, someone else can find the necessary reliable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added a ' .... Peridon (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find nothing to establish notability. No discussion in reliable sources. Looked at 6 different online drink recipe sites and no mention of the drink in any of them. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 0 ghits found. Nor can I find the eponymous Johnny O'Mara. (Note to creator of article: Hawaii IS in the USA and has been for 50 years or so. Not sure about the availability of Jameson's in Hungary. You could do with a reference there. Come to that....) Peridon (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:MADEUP. I think it may actually be a WP:HOAX, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh I bet somebody drank it at some point...it's not a "hoax" as the guideline is written, which highlights more of a problem with the guideline than it does with anything else. Shadowjams (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:MADEUP. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 18:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No evidence is available to suggest that this drink is - or will be - notable. But it doesn't sound bad, either. Cheers, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:NOTABLE --Bsa dow ski1 02:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Mayweather vs. Manny Pacquiao[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A PROD tag was removed without any apparent improvement. This match is "in negotiation"; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only two of the references are directly about the topic and both specifically state that negotiations have just begun; the remainder is speculation. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the fact that this is only a PROPOSED fight (as the nominator said, the management of both sides are still discussing a fight, nothing has been finalized), I am not sure the notability of single fights. Also possible COI as the creator of the article is User:MoneyMayweather17 and their only edits are to this article. TJ Spyke 21:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that there are some large copyright violations. The first 2 paragraphs are just copied from the first source (Yahoo Sports), and a couple of the other ones appear to be just copy and pasted too. TJ Spyke 21:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to have significant coverage. Muhammad Ali versus Sonny Liston this is not. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And for the final nail in the coffin: the fight has been called off by Pacquiao's side because he refuses to take a drug test (which seems suspicious to me, especially since BOTH fighters would have had to be tested) [13]. TJ Spyke 17:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Music Productions[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found zero sources for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this spamvertisment. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially empty article. Alison22 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lego Star Wars (video game series). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in the Lego Star Wars games[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entire article is straight up a list of who's-in-what-games, by each game. There's no way to cut it other than this is game guide material as we wouldn't do this for weapon lists or other items related to a game series, and as a result serves no real purpose to inform the reader of, well, anything at all to be honest other than, well... just who appeared in which title. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever possible to Lego Star Wars or delete. This is essentially just a list of characters, which is usable for game guides only. JIP | Talk 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the simple default solution to this kind of material. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok w/ Delete or Merge - I did some maintenance to this article because it looked downright awful, but truthfully I can't deny it falls under WP:GAMETRIVIA. --Teancum (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second: I just created an article for the video games themselves - Lego Star Wars (video game series) - the character list should be merged there, perhaps in a "playable characters" section, but not to the main Lego Star Wars article. Tezero (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Bryan Adams[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This autobiography reads like a promo piece. The subject fails WP:BIO.

The only real reference that might claim notability is the multichannel.com plug that was likely picked up from a press release. none of the rest are Wp:RS. The one award that might lend notability is the Telly Award which is a very insignificant award, given to thousands of people each year. Failed Speedy Deletion as WP:CSD#G11.

Related discussion in this section of ANI.

Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. WP:N. His IMDB page (which is not always a WP:RS) is impressive, but the credits are mostly as a producer, i.e. more business than creative. There was an apparent WP:COI in the creation of the article (by User:Lloydbadams), but that can be overcome by editing. What I'm having trouble finding is any press coverage, other than press releases. He seems to be an expert at self promotion, but not notable. Pburka (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete this COI editor also injects this vanity piece into other articles where inclusion is unwarranted. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Cravis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Musician who does have an Allmusic entry, but as that site says, his releases are self-published. Cant't see any other notability here. Geschichte (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage; does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 04:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Bete[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability, I don't know what weight should be given to the claim of his songs being "a rallying call for those in support of renegade general Ante Gotovina". Besides, that's a WP:BLP issue. Geschichte (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My thanks for listing at this Croatia-related forum. Subject simply not notable, not even in Croatia significantly. No sources. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Quarter of Quebec City[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently deleted on fr:, with the rationale that Quebec City doesn't really have a gay village as such — it has a couple of gay businesses that happen to be located near Le Drague, but the city's gay community is widely dispersed and doesn't really live in a unified neighbourhood. The early version of the article was literally just a business directory with widely varying street addresses confirming that the businesses in question aren't all in the same neighbourhood. And given that we're talking about Quebec City, if the article is unsourced and unsourceable on fr:, then it's beyond hope here. Delete. And note that I'm a gay man, so this isn't a homophobic "delete gay villages" crusade — it's more of a "don't create articles about gay villages that don't actually exist in real life". Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't warrant more than a paragraph or two within the Quebec City article. PK T(alk) 20:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for article with such small amout of refs and context. Kyle1278 03:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the French-language counterpart for this article has been deleted. - Schrandit (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom = me too. Quebec city is not known for this, cf. Montreal, Toronto (trono), etc. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 permaculture. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guild (permaculture)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an awkward stub article. The words as used form jargon phrases becoming somewhat impenetrable to the non topic-expert. The article title, if the article is deemed to be valid here, should probably be changed to permaculture guild since it appears misnamed, but it has no references and thus appears to be Original Research, or possibly an attempt to establish the terms by placing it in an encyclopaedia. So I am proposing it for discussed deletion on the basis that a PROD doesn't seem fair to it, and AfD will give it a substantial chance of discussion and perhaps enhancement. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to permaculture. Seems to be a legitimate topic, per this search, but there's insufficient information here to justify a separate article. Pburka (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I understand the logic of a redirect, redirecting an article of this name is not valid because it is not a topic anyone would look for. If such a redirect is appropriate it may be created today without conflicting with this article by creating it at Permaculture guild. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe that this article has the correct name already. The term isn't "permaculture guild", it's just "guild", but it has a specific meaning in the field of permaculture. Of course, the other advantage of redirecting is that it can be done boldly, without clogging up AfD. Pburka (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then the article has the alleged term incorrectly emboldened within it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's fixed easily enough :) Pburka (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to permaculture. The subject is already covered in permaculture. 21:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to permaculture. If this topic should outgrow permaculture, we can always split it again. As it stands, the article is very weak and it appears unlikely to become substantial any time soon, if ever. Dethlock99 (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' per above. build the single sentence up, and eventually it will be capable of standing on its own. but lets see the material first, then split it off. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G11, by Jimfbleak. — Sarilox (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutivism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable unreferenced art theory, advertising the work of a single artist WuhWuzDat 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:OR. Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Notability WP:Verifiability WP:Neologism. Pburka (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the style of one particular artist, Vinesh Sukumaran, who does not have an article in Wikipedia. When and if a Wikipedia article is created on this artist, the subject can be covered in his article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, not a genuine school of art. Hairhorn (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerially Delivered Re-forestation and Erosion Control System[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - non-notable idea, lacking credible sources. Appears to be largely WP:OR Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prod-tagged this article earlier. Basically this is spam for a proposal by the CIaverton Group to drop tree seedlings from airplanes in northern China. None of the outside sources given in the article even so much as mention the idea of planting trees; they are utterly unrelated. Abductive (reasoning) 17:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not an article. Geschichte (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, delete this one. The only citations pertinent to the subject matter are primary sources; if the project had been cited in WP:RS, the article's creator would no doubt have added such citations already. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete I disagree that it is non notable. The concept is more than simply dropping tree seedlings which would of course die. The article proposes a detailed mechanism for dropping a mini self sustaining environment, ie a hygroscopic cell - a car tyre, a source of hygroscopic nutrient - sewage sludge, and a means of preventing same being buried in sand by means of a self erecting sand fence, which would allow any seedling to survive. This has all been approximately costed and checked for feasibility - ie nos of planes, tyres, areas covered etc and references. Given the disastrous soil erosion in china, the need for carbon free power generation, this is certainly notable. OK it is only published on the Claverton Energy Group website, which has several hundred, mainly professional contributors and users, so maybe that is sufficient grounds for deletion....but there are numerous credible references within the article backing up the main calculations and findings.Engineman (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea and I hope it works out. But until third parties take notice of this proposal, it isn't Wikipedia:Notable. Abductive (reasoning) 17:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hanley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, this person is one of over 2,000 people standing for election at the 2010 UK General Election. That to me doesn't make him notable as per Wikipedia rules. It's also self promotion the subject appears to be the person who created the article, user LawReport. If he gets elected, then he may be worthy of an entry. Until that point, I say he's not Dupont Circle (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. More notable than the average local politician (e.g. he was an official observer at the Palestinian election), but I can only find minimal, local press coverage. I feel he's insufficiently notable, but could be swayed if more significant press coverage could be found. Pburka (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- He is the prospective Labour Parliamentary candidate in a labour-held seat. If we delete this article now and he wins the election (now due within six months), we will need to produce one within the next six months, if he wins. If he loses the election (or decides not to stand), that will be the time to delete the article. With an election pending, we are inevitably going to get a lot of candidate biographies. I would suggest a mass cull of unsuccessful candidates, just after the election. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am seeing a good amount of secondary source coverage. Plus, Peterkingiron (talk · contribs) makes a pretty good point as well. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you list some of the secondary source coverage, particularly any from the national or international press? Pburka (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability: none given, and I have not found any. Note that "he is not notable, but who knows: maybe one day he will be" is not a justification for keeping an article: that is what Peterkingiron is saying. Likewise "I am seeing a good amount of secondary source coverage (but am not telling you where it is)" is not a justification for keeping. This is one of a string of articles all created by an account which has been used only for creating articles about Morrish Solicitors and their partners and employees, and, in my opinion, is spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I gave some thought as to whether his membership of the Labour National Policy Forum should sway it, but with so little coverage in GNews it doesn't quite make it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm closing this early before this becomes an orgy of pile on deletes, as there's no chance this topic could be encyclopedic - if any of us could fathom what the topic actually is. Fences&Windows 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dajjal flag[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is beyond Original Research and/or Synthesis. It's a pretty solid example of word salad, contains zero encyclopedic content, and the "footnotes" are all either citing benign points unrelated to the argument, or from highly dubious sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't understand a word of it but I can tell from the opening that it seeks to advance a viewpoint rather than document an existing one. What that viewpoint actually is eludes me. In fact, reading it for a second time, I think it is giving me a headache. The sections seem entirely disjointed from eachother. I can't rule out the possibility that there might be an encyclopaedic topic in here somewhere but I don't know what it might be. Apparently Dajjal is the Arabic word for "to deceive" and refers to a false prophet or false messiah (an Islamic version of the Antichrist concept) but it is not clear what, if anything, this has to do with flags. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comes under "WP:utterly bonkers". Seems to be a compendium of the author's personal thoughts. Paul B (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fairly obviously. There does come a level of silliness that's really beyond toleration. Moreschi (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incoherent WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, editor is now trying to put almost the entire article, verbatim, into another article. See here: [14]. Is there anything we can do about such a disruptive pattern of editing? MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR and incomprehensible. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is nonsense. Hardyplants (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally incoherent, unsalavageable. Hans Adler 08:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as confused random gibberish. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1. Patent nonsense. and A1. No context. Шизомби (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4. Ged UK 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chris and James 5 O'Clock Showdown[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable student radio show. Some of the claims verge on blatant hoax noq (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps even speedy since this was previously deleted, and is no more notable now than it was then. Lots of inside jokes that might be funny if you attend the U. of Liverpool. It's an online radio station operated by university students. The show appeared once a week (Wednesday at 5 pm). And since there are lots of students who have shows on the student radio, they were the best of the duos on the radio station (hence the "award"). Best of wishes to Chris and to James, sorry, no article. Mandsford (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. The new article is substantially the same as the previous version. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Rudkin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, per WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. Almost all sources are self-published. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also per WP:PROF --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~Delete this paper is listed as part of a "working Paper Series" which often means not peer-viewed. However,

this site states: The papers published in the series have undergone a process of peer review.

This paper falls into the same category. Oddly, neither is included in the article (unless I'm missing them). The article does require work, several of the links are directly to papers, without indicating who published them, when or where. I realize if the reader wants to find them, a direct link works, but it is useful to the reader, and critical to the reviewer, to understand whether the papers are peer-reviewed. In addition, important claims in the lede are not backed by references, but this is not an argument for deletion, rather an argument for better editing. As implied, adding these apparently peer-reviewed papers is important.

One of the included references is published online by Elsevier, one of the most respected publishers. It used to be assumed that such a publication implied peer-review, but I haven't stayed on top of the online outlets for such publishers, so I don't know for sure. At least one other paper is in the same category, so if peer-reviewed, it would help tip the scales in favor of this article.--SPhilbrick T 16:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the person has had papers published in respected journals. Can you please let me know which criteria of WP:PROF this achievement alone satisfies? The only one that I can imagine you're aluding to is criterion 1, but that would require evidence that her published work has been highly cited by others. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 17:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was assuming that multiple peer-reviewed publications would be sufficient for Notability; I hadn't read WP:PROF specifically, after reviewing criterion 1 I agree that she doesn't pass.--SPhilbrick T 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the various searches suggest she does not meet WP:PROF or any other guideline. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her published papers do not have unusually high number of citations. Does not meet WP:PROF. Pburka (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS gives a grand total of 2 cites. Many hundreds of cites are normally required to pass WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete it is safe to assume in the absence of very strong evidence that the papers published by a master's student are unlikely to be significant enough in the field to meet any interpretation of WP:PROF, & thecitation data bears this out. Critical Perspectives in Accounting is a long standing journal originally published by Academic Press, which Elsevier later bought; the AP journal list, though smaller, was much more distinguished than Elsevier's list at the time. But one paper in even a very good journal is not notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the page to remove the weakly referred to working papers, and in the main body (top) of the page I have included the main points of her thesis around Education with an external reference to a paper which cites her work. I'm sorry that the process has taken so long. Even though I read the information about the creation of pages, and thought I had followed rules, it's obvious I haven't. I think all of the concerns are addressed now, and the main 3 important papers are the only ones that are included with external references. (Xmlgod (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. WoS shows not a single hit using the loosest query (author = Rudkin K*), basically confirming what Xxanthippe found using GS – essentially no impact. Claims in the article such as "She is a leading researcher in the fields of Accounting and Education" seem to be gross overstatements. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure how complete WoS is when it comes to accounting. I can't find anything from Luca Pacioli when I look on the pulic search site for WoS, but I might not have the same access as you. (Xmlgod (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Point taken. I know that it covers mainstream journals like Econometrica, et al. – there are >200 journal titles listed under "economics", about 80 under the "business" topic, and >100 in "education". You can browse lists here. My assumption was that a claim of being a "leading researcher" in such areas would imply showing up somewhere in this broad cut of journals. GS seems to return similar results and it generally has a much more liberal inclusivity. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
This one isn't there [15]. I'll keep looking through others she is cited in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmlgod (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A respected but minor academic is honorable, but not notable Vartanza (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to consider this. I will spend some time to place the important parts of her research on the Wiki, rather than her own page. This is a much better way for people to find the important information anyway. (Xmlgod (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Gah!. How confusing. Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarineMeat (2nd nomination) Fences&Windows 02:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MarineMeat[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Pretty standard WP:NOTNEWS ; no other source apart the CNN link. Cyclopia ^talk 14:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn thanks to helpful comments by User:Everyking. There is some coverage and I feel some more source-digging is warranted before taking a decision. I think the best way to deal with it is to propose some merge target. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The incident appears to have had no lasting significance. No current presence in Google. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has one major press source already given, and I'd be very surprised if there are no others out there. Everyking (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised too, but found none. If you find some other source, I will be glad to withdraw. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here you go. That's from the Los Angeles Times. Everyking (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am half-convinced. I mean, I also looked again, and what can be found does not lend credence this is indeed notable in itself. It seems a one-off thing that lasted a day -which would be fine with me if there is vast coverage, but it seems not the case. Perhaps the best thing is to merge it somewhere, like in Don't ask, don't tell? --Cyclopia ^talk 01:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of the sources is from January 2001, and the other is from June 2001. So it wasn't something that just got attention for one day and was forgotten. Bear in mind that news sources for things that happened in 2001 can be surprisingly scarce on the Internet—it's very likely that there are more sources than that, including some that appeared only in print. Everyking (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incline to agree. Withdraw for now. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not often I agree with Cyclopia but .. yeah, WP:NOTNEWS, also unreferenced - Alison ^❤ 01:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 15:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reopened and relisted this: a nominator cannot decide to speedy keep unilaterally if others have argued to delete. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Fences&Windows 15:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 15:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 15:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 15:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already recognized my clumsy error, but there is also already a second AfD on the thing. Reopening this creates two different AfDs on the same article. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kostas Nikolaidis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD; no sources can be found to show that this footballer meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is about a marginally notable footballer. He definitely played in the Greek third division, (I've added a match report as a source) which is professional according to the Hellenic League website, but I'm inclined to ignore WP:ATHLETE for someone who spent just a few seasons at such a low level and almost certainly won't pass the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reference has been added confirming (I think I can make him out as no.15?) he has played at the 3rd level in Greece, which is regarded as Fully Pro and thus meeting Athlete. Eldumpo (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarded as fully-pro by who? This source which is used to 'prove' notability doesn't say the article is fully-pro; in fact, it infers it isn't by saying that that teams which play in this league have been relegated "from the professional leagues", which implies that this league isn't! Giant Snowman 22:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the Hellenic League's website (keep in mind the obvious limitations of Babelfish), and found this article which very strongly suggests that only the Alpha Ethniki and Beta Ethniki are fully professional (with youth sides). I don't read Greek, so I could be a Babelfish issue, but I know "Επαγγελματικών" means professional and its use in the article seems pretty clear. Jogurney (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the general notability guideline Spiderone 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can't read Greek either, but did his team play at a higher level while he was playing for them? To me the reference (via Babelfish) suggested it was the 2nd level, which would change things. 8lgm (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Hellenic League's website, the last time Panetolikos played in the second level was the 1999–00 season (of course they are back again in the 2009–10 season). I looked at a few match reports from the 1999–00 season and could't find Nikolaidis (it's also well before he started his senior career). Jogurney (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although it's clear that he has played at the 3rd level of Greek football, it is unlikely that such level is fully-pro, and the article doesn't pass the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In no way I believe that the league he played in was professional. Geschichte (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenotia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This band appears to fail WP:BAND and the GNG. ^Bongo_matic 14:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources somewhat after the time of nomination (in this version) were:

Sonicbids: Appears to be a booking site for bands to get gigs. Promotional by definition. Text probably provided by the subject. Not significant coverage, not RS, not independent.
smnnews.com: Non-RS, appears to be copypaste from press release. Not significant coverage, not RS, not independent.
The West-Georgian: Local, college newspaper. College newspapers have never been accepted as establishing notability. Not RS (for notability purposes).
absolutepunk.com: user-contributed content. Not-RS.
absolutepunk.com: user-contributed content. Not-RS.
absolutepunk.com: user-contributed content. Not-RS.
absolutepunk.com: user-contributed content. Not-RS.
absolutepunk.com: user-contributed content. Not-RS.
absolutepunk.com: user-contributed content. Not-RS.
absolutepunk.com: user-contributed content. Not-RS.
mtv.com: references limited to name of band and song—zero descriptive information about band or its works. Not significant coverage (indeed not even "coverage" by normal definition).
mtv.com: references limited to name of band and song—zero descriptive information about band or its works. Not significant coverage (indeed not even "coverage" by normal definition).
imdb.com: one sentence of user-generated content (in full, "The episode is named after a song by Kenotia."). imdb has never been considered to establish notability, even of films covered comprehensively. No significant coverage, not RS.

allmusic.com (not included in artcile): directory entry without any biography entry at all—moreover, allmusic biographies have never been considered to establish notability. Not significant coverage (indeed not even "coverage" by normal definition, not RS.

^Bongo_matic 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. A few new "sources" have been added. Two are directory entries (Billboard and iTunes). Another is a one sentence promotional blurb (neither for the band nor the director) indicating that a graduate of Musicians Institute directed one of the band's videos. No significant coverage in reliable sources still. ^Bongo_matic 04:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WP:BAND threshold is two albums; Kenotia has released one. Also, I have questions about the reliability of AbsolutePunk as a source, since it's unclear how they report news. If AbsolutePunk were to be demonstrated to have a strong editorial/review policy for content, I would change to a weak keep. —C.Fred (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where on Wp:BAND does it say they have to release two albums to be notable? I've got it open in another tab and I cannot see that anywhere. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Item 5 of the indications that a band may be notable: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels." —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Article meets WP:GNG which is the prime standard for notability! See refs. 217.238.232.86 (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to me as a wrong nomination for AFD. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. See WP:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination PCgo (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I did not understand why this article was nominated for deletion. The sources in the article are reliable, the band appeared in MTV many times and they have a profile in Allmusic, not included in the article. So, why this article was nomited for deletion? Can someone answer me? Victor Silveira (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the discussion below, I re-read the article and the sources. Maybe C.Fred and Hairhorn are rights. There are much more infomation in the article than in the sources. So, I'll change my vote to Neutral, because I'm still not convinced this band is non-notable. Since it appeared in MTV, I think there are some TV programs about the group. But, since such sources are not easy to find and I couldn't find any other reliable source in the web, I shall leave the discussion. Thank you! Victor Silveira (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources providing non-trivial coverage do you consider qualifying as WP:RS? Allmusic is a directory—inclusion there is not an indicator of notability. ^Bongo_matic 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thewestgeorgian.com - Newspaper of the University of West Georgia isn't reliable? They have an editorial oversight. www.mtv.com - Isn't reliable too? They have an editorial oversight. www.allmusic.com is a reliable source! Should be included in this article. Editorial Content: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=32:amg/info_pages/a_about.html They have an editorial oversight; So whats your problem? All reliable sources according to WP:RS and WP:V. PCgo (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PCgo is right! All these sources have editorial oversight and give notability to the group. They satisfy Wikipedia's criteria. There is no problem with them. Victor Silveira (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rework the article to show that the bulk of the article is supported by them? Right now, all they source are the fringes of the article (intro, infobox); the bulk of the article is sourced to AbsolutePunk. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, I don't see any problem in the article be sourced to AbsolutePunk. It is a forum with editorial oversight, which is acceptable by Wikipedia. Well... I can try to rework it later. Actually, I'm a little busy. Victor Silveira (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned on a forum isn't evidence of notability. Neither is an article in a student paper. Hairhorn (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. Please, pay attention to the discussion. Victor Silveira (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. The discussion about whether these sources are reliable is moot, because the coverage isn't significant enough to establish notability. This coverage is trivial. Hairhorn (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Hairhorn... Now, I understand what you said. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Victor Silveira (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are trying to re-invent the wheel, Hairhorn? Qoute: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". All mentioned sources do have editorial oversight so they are RS! We do not need a new defination what "Reliable sources" are. See WP:RS PCgo (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to get bogged down in this, but you and I aren't riding the same wheel. There's a huge difference between saying, as WP:RS does, that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight", and what you seem to be saying, something like "if it has editorial oversight, then it's reliable". One thing does not imply the other. WP:RS also explicitly says "Internet forum postings [...] are largely not acceptable." Hairhorn (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thought but your statements are reffering to 'Self-published sources'. Reliability in specific context - See Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 and WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion. This article (Kenotia) meets WP:GNG because there are some reliable sources and AbsolutePunk isn't just a "Internet forum". It has also an article on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbsolutePunk - Please look at the references there too! PCgo (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that section is called "self published and questionable sources". But again, this is all a red herring: it hardly matters whether or not absolutepunk or a student paper or an MTV listing are reliable, because they're all trivial. Hairhorn (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, really a non-notable band as I saw only trivial coverage.--Canniba loki 18:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saterland Frisian Wikipedia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the sources are self-ref'd, non-notable website. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion candidate. Polarpanda (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added: but see additional comment below: I de'prodded this one. Wikipedia itself is clearly notable, and the fact that many different language components of it exist is also notable. As I wrote the other day in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech Wikipedia (2 nomination), "I am not in favor of merging every article about every different language wikipedia into one article. because i think wikipedia itself is notable and should have a page on wikipedia, and subpage organization makes sense." And unlike the Czech article at the time of nomination, at least this has some references even if they are internal. Even if there are no other sources to be added, a fact I am not yet convinced of, I am hard pressed to see how the project is improved if this page is deleted.--Milowent (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- because we would not let anyone else use the logic "X is notable, therefore every sub-X is notable." Polarpanda (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - its used all the time, its dependent on how you define X, however.--Milowent (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it is far less likely there will ever be external sources on this topic, if only because there are 12,000,000 speakers of the Czech language in your example and 2,000 speakers of Saterland Frisian in this case. Further, reliable, third-party sources are a core requirement of notability and of the project in general, we cannot exempt articles just because they are on topics we are partial to for having the same goals as our project. MBisanz ^talk 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My humble opinion as a frequent contributor to the Saterfrisian Wikipedia is, that an article on it is useful as soon as a user can obtain information from it, he won't get otherwise. Of course, there are many other ways to it, but I feel you should not block any possible way.--Pyt (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Digging into this more, I see there is some precedent I was not aware of that should be noted in this discussion. In the May-August 09 discussion here [16], the proper treatment of smaller language wikipedias was debated at some length. That discussion links to a slew of AfD discussions from earlier this year, where the close was to redirect to List of Wikipedias. Since I doubt consensus has changed in the last 4 months, and that consensus seems pretty strong, I suppose that should be the correct result here as well. At least having the redirect will prevent article recreation and avoid wasted efforts. I am going to leave my Keep vote as my personal position, but I fully accept that the outcome should be Redirect--Milowent (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I concur with the redirect argument. The current article contains nothing of significance that isn't in the List of Wikipedias article. (I updated the size entry in the list.) If reliable sources write about the site, or other developments warrant more coverage that the list entry, the article can be created.--SPhilbrick T 16:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Divorced Guys. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divorced Guys[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable future David Spade film. Author de-prodded, but there is still no evidence this has started principal filming yet or is independently remarkable. Should be deleted per WP:NFF. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (if notability can be shown, keep); the rationale above is reasonable, and I'll add that the whole "premise" section seems to be copied from the external link given. Please take care to not bite the newbie here; he really is confused about how to do this. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Nihiltres, my nomination does read a little bluntly. I'll try to keep that in mind a bit more for the future. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no evidence of notability. When notability established an article can be created on this topic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Incubate or merge per Schmidt is also acceptable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The AFD message has been removed from this article on multiple occasions. If the discussion is anything but WP:SNOW consider adding an hour or two to the end of the 7 day discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or merge. In looking at WP:CRYSTAL, which specifically says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred", one might consider that the available sources showing coverage since 2007 seem to meet the requirements for inclusion in some manner... even if only as a sourced section in the David Spade article. Variety, Monsters and Critics, Slash Film, Empire, Insider. It would seem sensible to let this one be worked on and improved as more press becomes available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate I see way too many wiki-editor wannabes bitten instead of welcomed at Wikipedia. I don't believe this is the right way to go. In my humble opinion wannabe editors should be nurtured instead of receiving deletion notices within minutes of posting their first (attempted) article. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or delete I did not realise incubate was an option. My first reaction was delete, but if there are some better sources out there this article could be improved easily. DRosin (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate - this film is unreleased and most likely will deserve an article in the future. Also per Ottawahitech, with whom I agree 100%. Airplaneman ^talk 20:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Almost certain to b notable in the future (due to David Spade), it's not notable right now as the script is still being written (which means the earliest the movie could come out is 2011). TJ Spyke 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Hood (basketball)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think the article lacks notability. I don't think ALL NBA basketball players deserve an article Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 13:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It doesn't matter whether you think someone should have an article: he passes Wp:ATHLETE, and is therefore allowed an article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jess - all NBA athletes pass the hurdle.--SPhilbrick T 17:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I didn't know of such policy :D --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 17:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is long-established precedent for keeping articles on all major league American athletes. Hood passes the general notability criterion anyway; see [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 19:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then add that to the article! --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few refs, but I'm not going to expand the prose content on demand. We're allowed to have stubs. I might expand the article in the future, but I have higher priorities right now. Zagalejo^^^ 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment

By the way, you should have left this note at Downwards's talk page. He actually started the article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know he's the orginal editor. Plus a bot has already notified him :D. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close - not even a real rationale for nomination - WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Not only in the NBA, but played professionally in France and Italy. matt91486 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War of Legends[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD nominated by User:Tim Song, who found nothing to support its notability. While I don't doubt the creator's intentions, it's got no secondary sources, and probably isn't ready for Wikipedia yet. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL. Per my prod rationale. Tim Song (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jagex, their other offerings are notable and this may become so in future. *sigh* I notice that the first edit included a link to 'the first fansite' for this new game that nobody knows anything about, the amount of fansite spamming on Jagex related pages is getting ridiculous. Someone another 23:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two goal lead[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

completely non-notable independently of a particular sport. Ironholds (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless we're going to have articles for every potential scoreline? (That was a joke, please nobody start articles for those) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject matter is quite interesting, but the article suffers from some fatal flaws. First, and foremost, to the extent that the claims are verifiable, they ought to be discussed in an article about the theory, not a specific application. On the chance that someone is interested in that avenue, note that "Parisi Theory" is already established as a term, with an entirely different meaning. Second, the article has absolutely no references, despite hints that theoretical work has been done. Third, the description in the article while interesting is either Original Research and inadmissible, or an unreferenced summary of work that should be referenced. Third, the only support for the theory is highly anecdotal, consisting of two unreferenced examples. This theory easily lends itself to statistical analysis, but that work shouldn't be done in the article. It should be found elsewhere, or developed and published elsewhere, and then an article might be appropriate. At best, is some other article is written with appropriate title and references, it may be appropriate to redirect this title, on the chance that the best title for the alternative article wouldn't be the obvious search term. However, that shouldn't be considered until someone undertakes that article.--SPhilbrick T 17:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. This article appears to be original research and/or a hoax. The article purports to cite the research of Lewis Parisi into the ability of teams to defend a two goal lead -- but a Google search for that comes up with only this Wikipedia article and no other sources. It is unclear whether the "Lewis Parisi" mentioned in this article really exists or, if he does, whether he has actually done the research described in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made-up junk. I'd even dispute the point that Sphilbrick concedes above: the subject matter isn't interesting which is why there's no statistical analysis on the subject. Pichpich (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do we really need this unreferenced rubbish? I would also say that it violates Wp:NOR, but that would be incorrect: Liverpool went 3-0 down before beating AC Milan in 2005. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed, this is a minor part of football and doesn't merit an article. Giant Snowman 12:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary article on non-notable subject. Article is unreferenced and appears to be a POV article to me. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glicko rating system. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Glickman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not assessed SyG (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main claim Glickman has to notability is that he devised the rating system used now by the United States Chess Federation. The article cites one reference, a fairly comprehensive interview with him which was published in the October 2006 Chess Life. However, I see very little point in an article where the entire content is "Mark Glickman is the inventor of the Glicko rating system, which was created as an improvement over the Elo rating system.", so my vote is to redirect to Glicko rating system. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sjakkalle Voorlandt (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I concur with the redirect argument. The current article contains nothing of significance beyond the reference to Glicko rating system. If someone takes the time to establish notability beyond that accomplishment, a separate article can be considered.--SPhilbrick T 17:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree. There is no real biographical material on him in the article. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some relevant links [23] [24] SunCreator (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nitrome Limited skins[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was PRODded as "utterly, boringly non-notable", and I have to say I agree; however the author wrote on the talk page "Oppose. This shouldn't be deleted because its "boring"." He didn't remove the PROD, but I'm afraid, in the spirit of WP:PROD and WP:BITE, that has to be taken as a dePROD. No, the article shouldn't be deleted because it is boring, but because the subject is not notable - there is no evidence of independent comment on these skins - and because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I had seconded the PROD, and I don't see a reason to think the original proposer necessarily meant that this article was both boring and non-notable, rather than simply being non-notable in a boring way, which I think it is. Some articles are flagrantly, outrageously non-notable. That aside, while Nitrome itself seems notable I have not been able to find that the list of its skins is; and while it may be useful to some people to collect this information here, WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utter, boring trivia. The matter is given more than adequate coverage in Nitrome#Skins and no redirect is needed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability for a stand-alone article. --Teancum (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disco-Pop[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An empty article with not a single reference. It seems unbelievable that the term is coined exclusively in 2000's for Mika and Gnarls Barkley. Especially looking at respective articles and finding not a trace of "Disco pop" mention. Delete per WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:N. Garret Beaumain (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would not be that surprised if someone could come up with a completely rewritten article describing the subgenre of "disco-pop" and sourced to reliable sources, but this article is not it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems to be a real term that is used in the music world, but it is hard to pin down exactly what it is, and to find solid sources. Googling for "disco pop" (in quotes) turns up many hits on the first few search results pages. Judging from the results, it seems that the genre has been around since before 2006, although perhaps the term is newer. The genre seems to be somewhere between dance-pop and post-disco. If kept, the article certainly needs to be expanded and better defined. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Googling has only proven that two words are sometimes put together, not that it is a term or a genre. A term presupposes there's a commonly accepted definition, not only the name. Garret Beaumain (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree with the nominator. Also disco-pop is not a genre. We can also have funk-pop, jazz-pop, etc it's just saying "pop-oriented disco music"/"pop-oriented funk music", etc. Disco-pop has been evoluted in 1970s with artists like ABBA, Boney M, etc. By the way, Gnarls Barkley is some kind of alternative/hip hop and Mika is indie pop. Enough said. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Nespoli[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is an author whose first book is yet to be published. No independent sources have been provided and I can find none by looking for various combinations of his name. A previous version of the article also said that the subject was an actor, but his IMDB page lists only what appear to be very minor roles. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism/attack page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs)

Sarah Murphy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, vandalism, etc Newt ^(winkle) 08:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- Um, my first time at this, so forgive if the format isn't right, but this is obviously vandalism Newt ^(winkle) 08:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Garbage like that doesn't have to come through AfD. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul.dll[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My search results indcate that, while it may be possible that this file is the subject of a number of forum threads online, there is no reliable sources from which an article can be written, It therefore fails WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this DLL exists and works as described, the article is a game guide. If it doesn't, the article is a hoax. It is unencyclopedic either way. JIP | Talk 20:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plathubis The Gray Fox[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find anything whatsoever for "Plathubis". It therefore appears to fail WP:V, but maybe others may have better luck. Tim Song (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides the lack of any web presence, an "ancient Latvian myth" about a Gray fox is a neat trick — as the species is native to North America. Bogus! Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the legend could be about a fox that happened to be gray, it doesn't necessarily mean a member of a particular species. But "Very little is known about this extremely rare myth" suggests it is not notable, and unless some WP:RS is supplied it fails WP:V and should go. JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-article. Geschichte (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most likely a hoax. At best, unverifiable and unreferenced. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, smells hoaxy to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 20:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skye at waterscapes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I am unable to find any significant coverage of this article to satisfy WP:RS. I see sites listing the building, but see nothing as far as an assertion of notability goes. ArcAngel (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional. Abductive (reasoning) 05:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not especially promotional in tone, but not notable. "Tallest building in between the lower mainland and Calgary" is not enough. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Geschichte (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is deleted, then the related article Waterscapes Kelowna by the same contributor should probably also be put up for AFD. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ArcAngel (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) – blatant promotion/spam. –MuZemike 01:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a thin case for a G11 speedy, and I wouldn't object. There doesn't seem to be anything unusual or notable about this particular building that would differentiate it from other similar buildings in other similar cities, nor am I finding news articles or sources that would document notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real soon now[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not conform with Not a dictionary and Notability policies. Also, the article is only the definition of an acronym and most likely should only be included in the list of acronyms, if that. If such acronyms like TBA and TBD do not have separate pages, this also should not. Webmaster961 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - already in Wiktionary as "RSN". This could be a soft redirect to there, I suppose. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "As popularised"? Geschichte (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in Wiktionary, then that's good enough. There should perhaps be some sort of "soft redirect" there. JIP | Talk 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete dictionary definition, not really an article; reluctant because good, solid explanation (except for the undue emphasis on Pournelle's column). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Abbott[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another long-term unreferenced BLP. According to her NYtimes filmography [25] she's been a stunt double a few times, produced a 27 minute documentary and had a few other TV/movie roles. Nothing that has attracted any writing about here in the press, books etc... of any signficance that I can find. basically this article is a duplicate of the IMDB page and that appears all there is to write. Does not have multiple independant sources writing about here, rather than simply recording in a directory fashion. Peripitus (Talk) 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need references for BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:ENT and more general notability criteria for bios. Polargeo (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is failing BLP not to mention notability. JBsupreme (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Agriculture UMD Soils[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student essay reporting some original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. Doesn't appear to be a reasonable redirect either. fetchcomms☛ 03:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a totally WP:OR and WP:SYNTH science paper. --Glenfarclas (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Geschichte (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia already has an article on sustainable agriculture. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is not on sustainable agriculture. It's about research farm, I think. It's hard to tell what the article is about with so much information in it that it totally irrelevant to the topic. I don't see any original research, just paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of somewhat unreadable information. Hats off to everyone who made decisions based on the text in the article. I think the topic might be notable, but not in this rendition, and probably its title is incorrect also. No vote on this one as I can't read the article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockerball[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN sport; looking at the citations the only ones that show the slightest sign of independence appear to be fictional. This was deleted in 2006 (see AFD). Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' or Move back to my user space. This article was originally in my user space so i could work on it with out it being deleted. The independent sources are not fictional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockerballAustralia (talk • contribs) 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I cannot find any reliable third party sources discussing this sport. Although the article seems to have been created in good faith it is just not notable yet. Mah favourite (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, tedder (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't like seeing pages created in Good faith deleted but the sport isn't notable enough. So naturally there is no sources to verify the article. Perhaps the page's creator can make a free website here using Google Sites. Mattg82 (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Even the picture in the article underscores that this is just some friends playing around in a backyard (or maybe the park). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MADEUP does not apply. offline sources exist. An example being "Rockerball Rules. 1. Sunshine Coast Grammar School. September, 2008." I'm trying to locate a copy of the rules I copied/took--RockerballAustralia (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an offline source like somebody having written down the rules is not enough to show notability. The relevant sentence from WP:MADEUP is: "you have to persuade someone else that it's important first – and that someone has to think it's sufficiently important to write a book, a newspaper or magazine article, or an academic paper on your idea." JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a game made up while on holiday on Straddie, by all indications. Not enough non-trivial third party coverage to indicate notability, I'm sorry. Would not object to article being Userified if desired. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The keep arguments mostly amount to liking it and it being popular, but the sources offered do serve to give some substance to the argument. Fences&Windows 00:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JDownloader[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software product. Sources found in typical search Google news, books, scholar, do not show any significant sources. Short product announcements, comments to other news articles, and was used once in an academic setting (ie, an academic paper that is not about jdownloader). These insignificant sources do not hold up to a notability claim. Miami33139 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand I find Wiki entries on software packages very useful as an unbiased reference. Also this software has interesting plugins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.197.136 (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their lack of a marketing department is not a reason to call it a Non-notable software product. If you take a look at their support forum with 10,416 threads and 56,432 posts, you will see that is a quite popular program. Besides I expect lawsuits: Bypassing security mechanisms (CAPTCHA can be explained as a security mechanism) is illegal in many countries. 212.182.183.12 (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see this program as notable (as one of the first download managers to automatically download a whole plethora of rapidshare/related web hosting sites), however, I don't think that WP:CRYSTAL on breaking captcha/lawsuits follows policy. I've seen JDownloader mentioned on quite a few sites, and I think its notability is around that of DownThemAll. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show this with reliable sources instead of guesswork? Miami33139 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that lots of citations which theoretically show relevancy in its particular field don't meet "reliable source" guidelines. JDownloader did win Brothersoft's editor's pick award (whatever that means). It is also in it's top downloads, above Orbit downloader (which is notable iirc) [26]ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also on AOLTech Download Squad [27]. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this program is notable (do you need the number of user in its fields ? This is maybe one of the most used downloader : and crossplatform : there is not much under linux) : or do you use a fallacious argument in order to erase a page that don't match your ideology ? I just try to understand : this is a supposition ok. The software is a legal software : it is the use of the user that is sometimes illegal. It depends on the content : If you use jdownloader in order to download free and open content, or private contents : it is totally legal. You know you can use free software and do illegal things : do you want to erase windows , ubuntu etc ? you can download free and open source bittorent : hope this is clear now. You see : I think it could be usefull to add a little word on legality on all this softwares ( but you cannot erase what you think is "bad"). --Kalki101 (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's inclusion policy is based on verified, neutral, information that is not original. Information must be based on reliable sources. It must be shown to be notably important and that is not based on whether it is legal or how many times it has been downloaded. Miami33139 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that some article cannot be "verified" , most of the real counterculture article cannot be verified : because they are not in the mainstream culture, and nobody in the mainstream will change their position on them. And does verified and neutral mean : unification ? Totalitarism : only one way of thinking ? YOU see I think this need to be understood : rules like "verified" or neutral OK ! But you need to accept sometimes article cannot be "verified" (by the mainstrean media) : neutrality does not mean : follow the sheeple. In term of features and under linux : this is the best downloader. ( is it a non-notable software ? I think you should change your argument : [1], --Kalki101 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fantastic software! --Francesco Betti Sorbelli (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep seems popular. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK! That should make it very easy to reference that popularity to reliable sources! Miami33139 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK BUT WHAT SORT OF SOURCE ? Do you want to debate or do you want to force your decision ? Can you answer my last post ? Or you don't want to, because there is a "political" polemic ? (and you are smart , so you don't want to speak about what is the real problem !) I think i am right when i say this is totaly about "conformism" and what is not conform : so this is ideology : i don't think ideology and conformism, and some sort of totalitarism, means neutrality ?(first paradox) The question is : Counterculture articles are accepted in wikipedia or NOT !? We should add an exception to "verified". ( or do you want wikipedia to be just the "mainstream culture", the mainstream encyclopédia ? And don't you see a paradox : an "open" encyclopedia that is not open to all culture and all political choices ? yes this could be or become totalitarism : so choose well ! (second paradox))--Kalki101 (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's popular and useful but nothing I could find that would satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for notability, including the software-specific essay Wikipedia:Notability (software). Terrierhere (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I could see, it's the de facto standard on online forum communities exchanging megaupload and rapidshares links, but I don't think you'll find a NYT article on this to support my statement, you'll have to know how the communities work form the inside. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not write articles from original research. If information requires knowledge on how something works from inside a small community it doesn'tbelong on Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know very well Wikipedia's policies and its position on original research, that why I said "I don't think you'll find a NYT article on this". However, it has 2,620,000 results on Google and more than 4 million on Bing, which pretty much proves that it's not par of a "small community", as you suggested. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Yes, I see some WP:POPULAR arguments being made. Please avoid those. I searched Google Books [28] and found nothing. I also searched Google News [29] and found a few hits but nothing of substance that would indicate encyclopedic notability. Not in a language that I can understand, anyhow. I say "without prejudice" only because perhaps some reliable/non-trivial sources may surface, but thus far into the discussion I have not seen any. JBsupreme (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you don't understand Spanish, it's not a good reasons not to count those articles. Besides, according to this reasoning, why would a program such as Ktorrent, that has less Google results, less mentions on Google news, be worthy of a Wikipedia article? Ktorrent is just one of the examples, there are many programs form the KDE desktop environment that, if we apply your reasoning, will results unworthy of an entry. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I dislike WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, but at the same time, who expects a software to be mentioned in google books? There are many software's that are notable in their respective fields (JDownloader being one of them) that do not have "reliable" resources by wikipedia "standards", but if you are to go to their respective communities, you will be able to see that they are notable. This is not "unverifiable" at all because any individual can go verify it. As for original research, I personally find the term laughable because anyone writing an article on an unfamiliar topic will indubitably do original research by looking at websites relevant to the topic. In regards to WP:RAP and WP:IAR however, I do stick by my keep vote for the sake of the encyclopedia. I've seem enough software articles deleted from the wiki because they didn't have "reliable sources" (or considered so by the mainstream) and other completely rubbish software kept due to artificial attempts to game the system (reactionary self published "citations"). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I'm guessing my two citations I offered earlier weren't "reliable, verifiable" enough. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another two tidbit about Jdownloader [30] and [31]. Again, one can argue it's not "reliable" as it is a blog, but really, on stuff that's usually used for grey things (ex. circumventing CAPTCHA), usually they are left to be mentioned in such blogs, and ghacks is referenced by other websites/"news" sources that google uses. Not so sure on filesharefreak (only know that torrentfreak is a semi-reliable source), but that one seems to imply notability. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper article (not sure, but pretty certain by the looks of main page): [32] ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the french ubuntu documentation [1], and its translation [2].--Kalki101 (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator's arguments were trash, sorry for being blunt. --Belchman (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As trashy as an argument without sources? sorryfor being blunt. Miami33139 (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no sources, WP:SOFIXIT or tag with {{notability}} and {{unreferenced}} instead of deleting articles. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. 182 references in google news archive dating back to 2001. That's more than Delta Tao Software had for instance for all its products—Afd. All (!!) of the news about JDownloader are not in English, so hard for me to evaluate, but the shear amount of them is an indication of some notability for this software. Pcap ping 19:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the mentions is in the (apparently mainstream) Spanish news site lainformacion.com, which according to Alexa is ranked 415 in Spain [33]. Pcap ping 19:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the web site of this software is ranked 742 in Spain and 2,687 in the world. Pcap ping 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And a little review in an Argentinian (general) news site [34]. Pcap ping 08:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also gulli.com has an interview (in German) with one of the developers. [35]. This site is in top 100 sites by traffic from Germany. [36]. The interview is pretty long probably sufficient to write an stubby bio for the guy too. Pcap ping 08:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was also recommended in a short "tip" article in issue 214 of the Spanish computer magazine PC Actual [37] (also included in the DVD that accompanied it, but that doesn't really matter). Pcap ping 08:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- walla.co.il appears to have a piece on it, [38], and this is a top 5 site in Israel (and close to top 1000 in the world). [39] Seems to be some sort of news portal. google translation: they found it better than the similar-purpose Raptor program (I don't dare add this to the article myself in case the translation is wrong). Pcap ping 08:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came to the article as a reader wanting to look the software up. So +1 for usefulness to someone seeking information - David Gerard (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you. This is why we have WP:IAR, even though this article, according to sources found by me and pcap, is clearly notable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undisker[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability either. fetchcomms☛ 03:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cursory web search brought up notable result that establishes the notability of the subject. Although the article needs to include these result and be expanded to assert its notability, deletion is too extreme an action in this case. Fleet Command (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show us the results? Joe Chill (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you see the link to Google search and Google Books search at the top of the page? Click on them to see the search results. (You don't have to dig too much.) There are two books that have mentioned Undisker in the same rank as that of notable software like ISOBuster. There are also Softpedia and CNET Download reviews. Fleet Command (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are trivial mentions. CNET and Softpedia aren't reviews, they are just a place to download the software. Joe Chill (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Trivial? Yes, and that is enough. Notability is not equal to being celebrity. Notability is relative to size of the matter and in that respect, Undisker is not only as notable as every other item in List of ISO image software, but also notable enough. Fleet Command (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not enough according to WP:N. Especially when it comes to download sites. Joe Chill (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:N, these are enough: http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22Undisker%22 Fleet Command (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That brings up four hits for me:
  PC annoyances
  
  "Undisker/Free trial; $40.44 to keep. http://www.undisker.com"
  
  Virtualization
  
  "You can download ISO image-making software from several vendors on the Internet for a trial period; for instance, try [other example omitted] or Undisker from http://www.undisker.com."
  
  Rob's Guide to Using Vmware
  
  "·Undisker www.undisker.com"
  
  Maldita PC!
  
  "WinISO [sic]. Versión de prueba gratuita. Precio: $29.95. http://www.undisker.com"
- Clearly you're getting other hits, since no reasonable person could consider any of these to "address the subject directly" or "in detail" as WP:N explicitly requires. Please link to them directly. These four hits might be sufficient for Wikiadvertisementcircular, but that's not what I signed up for. —Korath (Talk) 13:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess you are right. The way you put it, it is so silly. Well... I don't know why I so insist on keeping things, unless they are so badly screwed up. May be it is good thing. May be not. But I guess this article is a goner anyways, so no need to go change my vote and write a few lines being ashamed and stuff like that. Fleet Command (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web search doesn't bring up even one instance of independent coverage of this product in the first hundred hits. (What it does bring up is loads of SEO and endless reprints of trivially-reworded material from the official site, which is only relevant to anything in that it makes me want to stop looking.) Every last google books hit consists of "[product name] [product url] [price]" in lists of similar software—the very model of insignificant coverage. The article itself was apparently written by the software's author and, while it reproduces the software's release history in excruciating and unverifiable detail, fails even to say what the program does. Heck, rm and Notepad "work with disk images" too. —Korath (Talk) 02:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Softpedia and CNet Download.com reviews don't really meet my definition of non-trivial coverage from a reliable third party source. I realize that this places me in some sort of zomg extreme deletionist camp. I'm sorry to those who feel that way, but I don't think Wikipedia should be reduced to a mirror of said software directory services. JBsupreme (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All book mentions brought up are little more than indications of the products existence as an alternative to other similar products; it's always mentioned in a list, with no critical commentary. It doesn't even have a Softpedia review, only a catalog entry there. Pcap ping 12:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Maryo Chronicles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolute lack of notability. It has been deleted twice and restored once on the basis that the article's contents in the new version are different from the original deleted article. However, it is not different enough to solve the major problems such as notability. Fact of the matter is that fan-made games such as this have a higher standard of notability, so having none is simply unacceptable. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however in addition to this article SuperTux may also need to be nominated, as it falls under the same failings, and we want inexperienced Wikipedia editors to feel it's a fair treatment so that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't become an issue. --Teancum (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per [40] and [41]. Seems to pass WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of a zillion freeware Mario clones. Sorry, but a mention on an Australian blog just isn't going to carry an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hardly consider the website of APC (magazine) an "Australian blog", not to mention that there is another article on the website of Stern (magazine) as well. Tim Song (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tim Song.Actual 3rd party coverage, even though it's fan-made. Polarpanda (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being fan-made doesn't make something non-notable. However, it lies in the low number of this third party coverage. After so many years of existence, I've seen little proof that this fan game got those sources from long-term notability and not from being noticed and quickly forgotten. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not temporary. Once notable, always notable. Tim Song (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since apparently no one bothered notifying the previous AfD and DRV participants - or indeed the author of the latest version of the article - I have done it. All participants of the previous AFDs and DRV who have not commented here have been notified, with the exception of a few SPAs and one blocked user. If I missed anyone, it was purely unintentional. Tim Song (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tim Song UltraMagnus^speak 07:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Andrevan@ 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the notability of an article is in question, we have a test that we apply: is there non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source? This test is simple, objective and clear, and as Wikipedian guidelines go, it is also old and strong. Tim Song has provided two reliable sources, and the coverage does not appear to be trivial, so the test is passed.
The General Notability Guideline is of central importance to Wikipedia. It is what enables content contributors to decide for themselves whether material is suitable for inclusion; in other words, the GNG is what lets writers create material without going through a committee process first.
Because of that, I think that passing the GNG is a bright-line inclusion criterion, and I think we need extraordinarily strong reasons to disregard it. I do not see that any such strong reasons apply here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tim Song, [42] and [43]. Whenever recommendations are being made it lifts the coverage beyond trivial, in my opinion, even if there isn't much written about the actual subject. Dpmuk (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, particularly after new sources have been linked above. Concerning nominating rationale; Saying it was deleted twice before is quite a red herring in the special case of this article. Where the first was a different article deleted after an AfD of questionable consensus and a closer leaving no rationale, and the second deletion being done in odd circumstances and then overturned? I'd say that it's basically the first AfD round for this article trying to hold itself on Wikipedia. The DRV particularly mentioned the possibility of a later AfD, and there are quite appropriate concerns raised. The only other thing I can offer as more statement of notability would be the coverage in multiple languages... though I know breadth of article isn't automatically part of notability criteria, I think it's at least encouraging toward it. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Voelpel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Article appears to be promotional in nature. | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GS cites give h index = 11 so looks borderline at best for WP:Prof #1. Are other considerations apparent? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too promotional, not enough coverage. fetchcomms☛ 03:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks as if other considerations are not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Hamill (model)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, fails WP:PORNBIO, is promotional in tone and arguably contains a breach of copyright. Rodhull andemu 19:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. All I could find was a European Gay Porn Awards nomination along with passing mentions at AVN/GayVN. Not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Scout management software[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially an advertisement for a group of non-notable software. This page belongs (and already exists) at ScoutWiki. SnottyWong talk 18:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nomination. If it is kept, it should be renamed Scout management software and should discuss the importance of such software around the world, not just for the BSA. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR. Geschichte (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace Virtualization[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research or a neologism with no indication of notability. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part essay, part promotion for the software "VMWare" referenced in the external links section. --MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought I could rewrite it, but in trying, I find I am not sure I understand the article's basic premise, "a world of difference between Desktop Virtualization and Workspace Virtualization. "--("workspace virtualization" seems to be used in the article alternately with "workplace virtualization") I think from the examples given that what is meant might be a virtual working whatever which is not based on the desktop of the individual user, but rather on the server. The distinction is probably real, but the article needs to be rewritten from scratch to be comprehensible. Readers can have no assurance about what is standard terminology when the article is written with the clear purpose of presenting the POV of the author, which is to promote the server-based concept. The final paragraph is telling: " with all the jargon’s floating around there is a need for having clear understanding of ... accurate nomenclature. ... The effort is to ensure that the common layman understands the technology in the right perspective to be able to take the right decision." DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Millard[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable obituary biography. The only sources are blogs and a paid obituary. Miami33139 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep : It is the creator of the Jabber/XMPP protocol and Exodus the XMPP client.

Peter Millard Obituary or Memoriam: Peter Millard’s Obituary by the Denver Post
Peter Millard
Peter Millard Application 2005
XSF People :: Peter Millard — Neustradamus (✉) 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- a paid obit, a blog, a wiki, the organization he worked with. Notability is not inherited and he hasn't been covered by significant independent sources. Sorry he is dead, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Miami33139 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - you do not know XMPP protocol I think ? You use AIM/ICQ/WLM-MSN ? — Neustradamus (✉) 12:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XMPP. —Korath (Talk) 17:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late link but it is cited on books : http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&as_brr=3&q=jabber+peter+millard&btnG=Search+Books — Neustradamus (✉) 10:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These books links are not about Peter Millard. An author who says thank you to Peter Millard in their book does not make Peter Millard notable. An author who says that Peter Millard wrote SoftwareX is not writing about Peter Millard. Finding the text string Peter Millard in several books is not evidence that Peter Millard is notable, the books need to be about Peter Millard. Miami33139 (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient reliable sourcing exists to support an article. —Korath (Talk) 17:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) - Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding oppose votes Shirik (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Express Corporation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The organization's notability is in question. CSD was contested under the indication that "sources may imply notability." However that notability seems to be limited to a project which is scheduled for cancellation. This is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I cannot find significant coverage beyond this future (cancelled?) project. Shirik (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The historical notability of the company is not dependent upon the success of the GX rocket effort. Even if GX is cancelled, the company is notable as being the first of its kind in Japan, i.e. the first privately led commercial-government space-launch partnership. Shirik may well be correct, that the listed sources may only imply this without explicitly stating it. No doubt the article is imperfect; it is a stub! What we all attempt to do here is improve Wikipedia. So if anyone would like to improve Wikipedia, why not start by finding some good sources for this article, rather than deleting it? (sdsds - talk) 18:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, please don't take the deletion nomination so personally. We are all here to improve Wikipedia, and while we might have differing views of what is best for the project, it's important to discuss those ideas instead of immediately going out and attacking bold actions. That being said, I only can go off of what I can see, and I lack the expertise to identify alternative sources of notability. If you have any recommendations I am all ears, but I can't really go out looking for notability when (1) I have no idea where to start and (2) the article only indicates notability from that particular project, which is inappropriate as discussed earlier. Shirik (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In an attempt to justify rescuing this article, I attempted to find significant coverage of this company, but I am not getting very far. I tried queries such as this one through Google News and haven't really identified any content beyond one hit for the aforementioned cancelled rocket. Does anyone else have any good suggestions on search terms? --Shirik (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider trying a wider google web search, i.e. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22galaxy+express%22+gx (sdsds - talk) 07:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even still, I'm having trouble finding a reliable source to site. That being said, the name is out there, as well. I'm on the verge of withdrawing this nomination to give the article the benefit of the doubt. I just wish I could get my hands on something concrete to justify it in my own mind. Unfortunately, I am not an expert in this subject so I cannot adequately interpret the sources that I am finding on my own. If someone could find a source for me (assuming that I am still unable to find one) and present it to me, I would be more than happy to withdraw this nomination and work on rescuing the article. --Shirik (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, all I want to see is a reliable source that mentions something other than the GX program or a third-party source that explains why the GX program is significant despite its cancellation. --Shirik (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass WP:CORP in my opinion. If it's true that their main project is cancelled and they fade into obscurity, that can be addressed if and when it happens. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that seems reasonable to me. Withdrawn --Shirik (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Party Parliamentary Group for Learning & Skills in the Criminal Justice System[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/All Party Parliamentary Group for Learning & Skills in the Criminal Justice System

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short-lived and non-notable All-Party Parliamentary Group. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable. Everyking (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As established by which sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any sourcing, and even the article doesn't claim that they actually did anything in the few months they existed. I do note that the All Party Penal Affairs Group might be a better article subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know if there are any established standards for notability for All Party Parliamentary Groups but there are hundreds of them and few have really good sourcing. Despite a sliver of official recognition they are not truly accountable to anybody and have no established method of reporting their activities. Some have been going for a long time and are respected, eg the America All Party Parliamentary Group. But in general they would have a high threshold to cross and this particular one comes nowhere near it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing inherently notable about All Party Parliamentary Groups; many are pretty inactive, and according to the article, this one only lasted a year. Warofdreams talk 00:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keeps don't really give any arguments based in policy. If anyone wants a copy for userspace, let me know. Fences&Windows 00:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ski jumping accidents[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Irrelevant for wikipedia. Belongs on a fansite rather than here. Highest Heights (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic of significant injuries in any sport can be notable, particularly in those instances where it was a career-ending accident. That said, I can't even say a weak keep on this uninformative little list. It's basically a list of names of notable jumpers who got hurt each ski season. I guess I'll avoid "Harrachov" when I go jumping. Mandsford (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good navigational aid. Although it should breakdown also the type of injury each incident involved, esp. if they were career or life enders. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands or improve significantly. I was thinking keep before I looked at the article, but when I did look I found that it's not at all useul. There are no inclusion criteria, and no sources. Geschichte (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upgrade. Most of the people have articles, but almost none of the articles mention the accident, so it cannot be seen if it was important in their career. the net result is it is neither directly nor indirectly documented, and fails WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's useful, but it will nead alot of expansions. Perolinka (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note WP:USEFUL. Geschichte (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess we missunderstood eachother because i said it was useful because of another user, who said it was not... Perolinka (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good catch, but I think that user added an explanation as well, in the next sentence. Geschichte (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List with no inclusion criteria can not be verified. Unless someone come up with a good criteria for inclusion on the list it should be deleted. I can't think of a good one. Rettetast 22:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only WC crashes? Perolinka (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward Animals[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meme appearing to fail notability guidelines per no significant secondary source coverage. Only incoming article links are from Gesture (appended See Also link) and List of gestures. haz (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't even make that much sense...clearly a non-notable meme lacking the coverage needed to meet WP:N -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the article is badly written doesn't inherently reflect on the notability (or, more importantly, verifiability) of the meme. The most prominent published references I can find are by Matt Yglesias (on his Atlantic blog) and the article he references in the Brown Daily Herald (a student newspaper). I'll leave it up to others to determine whether those add up to verifiability. If kept, it should certainly be renamed to "Awkward turtle", as the other variants seem to have no significance that goes beyond being made up in school one day. rspεεr (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep - I think there are sufficient WP:RS to establish notability. But the article should be stubbed down to what can be sourced. (Hint: the "sexual tension squid" cannot be.) The article should probably also be moved to "Awkward turtle." — æk ^Talk 03:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Actually a re-creation of the long-since deleted and salted "Awkward Turtle" article (see AFD1 and AFD2) but this is arguably even worse because it has even more nonsensical crap ("sexual tension squid"?) crammed into it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There simply isn't enough significant coverage of this in reliable sources to sustain an article. It is currently sourced to a student-written article (same article linked from two different sites to make it look like two sources), and the best additional sources anyone can find are another student article and a blog post that consists of little more than a link to a YouTube video. This isn't a hoax, but it isn't notable either. The previous AFDs linked by Andrew acknowledged this, and the new title appears to be an end run around the salting. --RL0919 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, not enough reliable sources, and I think some of it's just plain made up, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:RS. Not enough sources. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, with no prejudice towards merging with Oahspe: A New Bible and redirecting. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faithism[edit]

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

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

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable religious theory, possible WP:HOAX WuhWuzDat 15:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As described in the article, it's not a religious "theory" but a religion by itself, although small (but in existence for more then one hundred years). Concerning the possible "hoax", as stated (and linked, referred) in the discussion and the article, Faithism is the religion of several defunct and existing groups, organizations, churches and one of them, the "Universal Faithists of Kosmon " is on Wikipedia already; There is a Museum in Las Cruces NM (Shalam Colony & Oahspe Mystery Museum P.O. BOX 159 Dona Ana, NM 88032-0159 USA )which issues a Magazine, " The Vortex" ,an archive at the NM State University, USA, several, now closed communities , books edited in print and out of print by organizations who claim to be Faithist etc. Numbers are now small, but real; evidently it's no "hoax". Vanais (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)— Vanais (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am a non-carnivourous pacifist Faithist in One Great Spirit, as defined in Oahspe page 1 verses 16-20, I have practiced this religion as best I can, without the present existence of a Faithist commune to join in, for the past 30 years. We are working toward re-establishing such a communal setting where followers of Jehovih/Om the Great Spirit can practice communal oneness, holding all things in common as taught in Oahspe and as described of early believers in Acts 4:32. There are many of us who are in communication with each other in ongoing groups. Just because someone may not have heard of us does not mean that we do not exist. M. H. Jones Lordessoflight (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — Lordessoflight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:RS/WP:N that I can find. The term is mentioned in the Oahspe, but nowhere else as far as I can tell. — æk ^Talk 03:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources that I could find. Google matches for "faithism" primarily use the term as a blanket word for religious discrimination (racism, sexism, faithism) which isn't what this article is about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Faithism is a term which is used for (excessive) attachment to Faith,even as a word for discriminating on grounds of faith, as sexism,racism etc. but it is also the term that several groups, churches and the like use now and used in the past to address themselves, as in Universal Faithists of Kosmon , and others (consistently with the use of it in Oahspe, the Holy Book of the religion) ; given the small numbers of the followers, now, you can't expect to find the term used primarily to address the religion, which nevertheless exists, as it can be also seen by google; Vanais (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)— Vanais (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I don't doubt Vanais/Lordessoflight's sincerity, but if this is a religion there's no indication it exists anywhere except on faithism.com. Lordessoflight said, "Just because someone may not have heard of us does not mean that we do not exist." Very true. But just because something may exist doesn't mean it is notable. See WP:BUTITEXISTS. Calling your belief system a religion doesn't make it notable; anyone can do that and plenty have (compare the Church of Filet Mignon), sorry. --Glenfarclas (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It' s not only in faithism.com, googling, it can actually be be found also, with a small article, here :www.sacred-texts.com [44] which is an important site of religious texts; here: [45], and here [46] , within a site in Portuguese about religions, in the section dedicated to the founder, John Ballou Newbrough by searching Faithist you can find more, for instance , besides the above mentioned article on Wikipedia on the Universal Faithists of Kosmon Church, here : [47], and several yahoo groups • If the point is that the term Faithism is , as it is , probably more now then at the time Oahspe was written, used as a parallel word for racism and sexism, this should lead to a disambiguation page rather then ignoring the minority acception of the term; It's not only a belief system, as Glenfarclas writes, having, as described in the article, rites and ceremonies, calendars, organizations, prayerbooks etc.(talk) 13:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Vanais (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)— Vanais (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment If you digit "Faithism" in the online catalogue of the Library of Congress , at : [48] you find data and referrals of a magazine and texts on Faithism as a religion, edited in London, in 1920 ;with further details available if you click the press or save button, and also here:[49] As a religion on its own, although with a a name which (now) is mostly used to describe something else, Faithism has been in existence for more then 100 years, important for being founded on Oahspe , being part of the spiritualist movement, having a peculiar combination of religious and masonic characters and features, like Mormonism, albeit on a small size, showing, again small, many of the traits of other much bigger religions, like differences between "sola scriptura" believers, schism over calendar issue, secret ceremonies and oral traditions , strong concern over social issues with several communes founded, of which, the Shalam commune in NM, USA was relevant and is still matter of interest and research, also at academic level ; Vanais (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)— Vanais (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment History of Faithism, with references, Bibliography and pictures,besides information on the subject can be found here : New Mexico State University
Comment Many Faithist texts can be found digiting "Kosmon" in the search engine of the British Library (online) some matches mentioning a "Faithists Scientist Church", see :[50]Vanais (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who are NOT practicioners of Faithism who have researched papers, documentaries and the like for the edification of any interested persons. Here is a link to a documentary which will soon be be released which is about the Shalam Colony of Faithists who practised Faithism: [51]. Students of Theology, Philosophy, Religion, etc., would expect to find all religions in such a wide resource as Wikipedia. To claim that an existing religion with historical and contemporary references, and with wide international membership (USA, Australia, South Africa, U.K., Holland, Italy, Greece, Canada, and more), is not notable, sounds like bigotry to me.Flaxseed2000 (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)— Flaxseed2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That bigotry comment is perilously close to being a personal attack, which is strictly prohibited by wikipedia rules. WuhWuzDat 15:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Kosmon Church in UK is still existing,operating and celebrating rites and ceremonies, the site is : www.kosmonchurch.org.uk [52]Vanais (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are all primary sources; no indication of notability. Being a religion is not a free pass for notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all sources are primary, see: the NMSU archive and Shalam, Utopia on the Rio Grande,edited by The University of Texas at El Paso, by Lee Priestly, for instance; Being a religion is not a reason for being ignored ;Vanais (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Oahspe: A New Bible, I see no need for a separate article. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although in a different scale it would be like merging the Bible with Christianity;Vanais (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which shows how important scale is. Do you think you could please start using indentations? Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually these latter comments do not show that scale is important; The fact that Faithists have always been few has been highlighted all the time,both in the article and the discussion, but what is important is to notice how much a small religion can have the same characters and history of the big ones,I believe this is one of the reasons why Faithism deserves attention;in particular it's a replica of many characters of the Mormon religion , but it failed, by far, to reach its worldwide success; under a social and historical point of view it should not be dismissed ; in other words, research about Faithism is a reasearch on religious phenomena and important aspects of 19th and 20th century America .Vanais (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, no, doesn't work that way. As I've said before: being a religion is not a free pass to notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I am open to the idea that wikipedia covers any and all religions, I cannot find anything that would give me a suitable definition of the term in the way the article uses it ("faithism," as mentioned above/earlier is mostly given as a neologism along the lines of "racism" or "sexism"). When this is the case, I would deem it the responsibility of the article's creator to establish notability. As it stands, the two online-sources do not support or confirm the notability of the topic, one is a wikipedia self-reference, and the rest is a poor assemblage of various writings that hardly anyone could check or has access to. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to Oahspe: A New Bible, where the term is already bolded in the lede. --dab (𒁳) 11:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan/List of Kurdish articles and delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kurdish articles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

mostly links to administrational pages. these lists could be made for any other topic. Ysangkok (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WikiProject Kurdistan space, say Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan/List of Kurdish articles ? 76.66.192.35 (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Mainspace, inappropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 17:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article its not clear to me where this may fit in, but its abundantly obvious its NOT an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TorahLive[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable web site. Alexa > 500000, nothing press-worthy, no assertion of notability within the article. TB (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spam. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. fetchcomms☛ 03:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Tapella[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Balatant advert about the current CEO of the GPO, created and edited by accounts with COI: Gpopr1 (talk · contribs) 162.140.67.10 (talk · contribs) Printer25 (talk · contribs) JustbeCalm (talk · contribs) Usgpo (talk · contribs) Hello1237 (talk · contribs), no independent sources cited. Sole Soul (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a cut-and-paste from elsewhere, written in totally non-encyclopedic style. The guy himself seems like he ought to be notable due to his position, but a Google search finds no mention of him in the press. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the style is a problem. Sometimes you need to search under variations of someone's name. I did a search for him using the name Bob Tapella and found references from independent sources such as this one: Change Ahead for GPO? from Graphic Arts Monthly. Using the name Robert Tapella, I found these articles at the Washington Post: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Robert+Tapella%60site%3Awashingtonpost.com I think this coverage adds up to notability. - Eastmain (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my vote to Keep based on the articles supplied by Eastman. The Washington Post reports him testifying numerous times before Congress, appearing at press conferences with Nancy Pelosi, etc. I don't know why I didn't find this stuff when I searched but he is clearly notable. Now somebody needs to rewrite the article so it contains references and sounds encyclopedic.... --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Does he meet the minimal threshold of notability? The answer is yes, all the CEOs of the GPO (25 of them throughout history) appeared before Congress for confirmaton, this will generate some news. But I doubt that we can find anything about him that is not already covered or can be covered in the GPO article. The GPO article already lists all the CEOs. I think we should redirect this page to it. Sole Soul (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The GPO article lists them. The individual articles are the place to cover their individual careers--what we need is write the earlier articles. And to trim the current one substantial: excessive photographs, PR language. That they're PD doesn't make all the content suitable for keeping. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Joseph[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy was declined, but I can't find anything in reliable sources about this preacher, or really much at all beyond a few blogs, announcements that he was coming to preach at a church, and so on. Not a nobody, but no verifiable indication of notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He has quite a presence on the web, but nothing that really establishes notability (i.e. no mainstream reporting). However this could be because I am searching in English and his major work seems to be in the Tamil language, so I could give him the benefit of the doubt. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not quite enough. Geschichte (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As WP:PORNBIO requires winning a notable award, rather than just being a finalist, this debate clearly shows that Gomez does not pass. Kevin (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Gomez[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still contemplating how PORNBIO could be improved; I don't think either inclusionists or deletionists particularly like it. Anyway - Gomez, representing Miss Columbia, won Miss Playboy TV 2005[53][54], did a photoshoot and interview for the November 2009 issue of es:SoHo (revista)[55], did an interview and appeared on Guayaquil Caliento which is I think a TV program on Canal Uno [56]. More notable than some, less notable than others. Шизомби (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If neither inclusionists or deletionists like it, it shows PORNBIO has the balance right. Epbr123 (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Maybe, though I detect a fallacy of some kind in your reasoning there... that's also just my impression they don't, what actually is the case would take some proving. Шизомби (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO, no evidence the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Did not win, place or show in Playboy TV contest, despite what's claimed here, and ended up in very low-rent porn. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect it is true she can't meet WP:GNG, particularly WP:SIGCOV, but why do you say this: "Did not win, place or show in Playboy TV contest, despite what's claimed here"? Шизомби (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany McDonald[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Admittedly seems to have a following but doesn't seem to have any coverage in reliable sources yet Polarpanda (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the basis of my searching, McDonald doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, being both unsigned and unmentioned in reliable sources, never toured, yadda yadda yadda. If having your intellectual property included in something that sells 8 million units makes you notable, I know quite a few software developers who would pass muster; and how many owners of those machines ever listened to the pre-loaded msuic? Josh Parris 01:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Lunde[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC, in that his released album seems very minor. I am listing the album article as well. Geschichte (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of failing notability requirements. __meco (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Not notable. Rettetast (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suitcase 3: Up We Go Now[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Song that has no indication of notability. Fails WP:NSONG Shirik (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an officially released album by a notable band, this would generally have "sufficient notability" to have an independent article. It further satisfies WP:NALBUMS becuase there is non-trivial coverage for this compilation at the following: [57][58]. Gongshow ^Talk 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the above sources to the article. It's still not terribly long, but I don't see that it fails WP:NALBUMS in any way. Gongshow ^Talk 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per gong.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also per Gongshow. fetchcomms☛ 03:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep commercially-released box set by a very notable band. Professionally reviewed. I don't see the problem here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aerosmith. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerosmith's fifteenth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is a classic case of WP:TenPoundHammer's Law and WP:Crystal. In its current form the page fails to meet notability in music because it is not clear why the album is significant. Without a album cover, confirmed track listing, album name or even released single this breaks every wikipedia rule and guideline under the sun regarding notability and crystal balling. The consensus from the last AfD seemed to be that because its coming out in 2009 its notable. This isnt even the case now. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aerosmith. If the album had been recorded I would have said keep it, but as it's incomplete, and with Steven Tyler now out of the band, it's just a few possibly unfinished tracks that may or may not get released at some point. There's some good detail here, though, that can be merged to the band article.--Michig (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aerosmith. Contrary to the nom, this does not break "every wikipedia rule and guideline under the sun regarding notability and crystal balling." Most of the article is sourced to reliable sources and although not all the sources help establish notability of this particular topic (e.g., the citation for the producer of the previous album), many do. That said, the album has not been released, doesn't have a title and may never be released. So the information seems to fit better within the history of the band than with this particular unnamed album. Rlendog (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:HAMMER. Tezero (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zaheer Abbas (singer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person who sang in an amateur TV series. Nothing else of note to state. No references here and nothing I can see elsewhere that shows this article passing any of the notability guidelines. Peripitus (Talk) 00:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only that, didn't win and wasn't even a finalist. Also, the article is written in a blatantly promotional style ("...stole the hearts of many"). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 07:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability assertion isn't referenced, but even assuming it is verifiable, doesn't seem notable. As noted, tone is wrong, but without substantially more of a claim to notability, not worth fixing.--SPhilbrick T 18:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not at all enough for an article. Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmarx[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is an advertisement for non notable company. It's been written by User:Adarw, which his name is, according to his user page, Adar Weidman. Apparently, he is an employe of this company. Most of the references used in the article links to Checkmarx's website, it's partner - Security innovation's website, its investors website, and to press releases. Xodlop (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criterion A7 for an article about a company that has no assertion of notability. Also the WP:NPOV issues just shoot up like rockets. --Shirik (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not quite sure I see a speedy deletion candidate here, but it doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP at any rate. Not to mention WP:COI problems, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, average non-notable software company. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, this does look like an advertisement, but it's not quite blatant. JIP | Talk 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Problems with promotional language can be solved by editing, so that doesn't require deletion. The problem is the lack of coverage for this company in reliable sources. There appears to be a small amount of coverage (e.g., this), but not enough to demonstrate notability. If the company is successful it may become notable in the future, but I don't think it is there today. --RL0919 (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English for Integrated Studies Project[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to fall under WP:SOAP and WP:NOR, as the author appears to be the creator of the project itself and the references section cites only the author's own unpublished documents. Simple Google searches for the subject reveal no significant third-party results. Although a commendable effort, I don't think the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia is warranted. Paul_012 ^(talk) 07:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 ^(talk) 07:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 ^(talk) 07:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails on most aspects of wp:No original research. Also seems an advert and is possibly being used as webspace as his site links back to wp article. Mattg82 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is at best a paper. Not an encyclopedia article. Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, the creator of this page was the initator of the EIS project. That is correct. There is no third-party results because it is a very new project already under suspicion of the Ministry of Education. I think people make it themselves too easy deleting pages here. Maybe you should ask about reason here before deleting the whole article. No one needs to hurry deleting articles. I just wanted to say that this English for Integrated Studies project is already well known by the Ministy of Education of Thailand and it may be included in Thailand's new school curriculum. So please keep the article. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.85.53 (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2009 (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. Wizardman 19:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redbridge foyer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable building. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
Keep. I added some references. The construction technique described at http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=1012411 is notable in itself. - Eastmain (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. My suggestion would be to create a stub for East Thames Housing and put the encyclopaedic information there. If that's not an option, my preference is delete - the construction technique alone warrants, at the most, a mention in an article about this construction technique. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Foyer setup is entirely notable, and this is a child of that idea. It is a thousand times more encyclopediac than some dismal country and western singer, and WP is knee deep in them.--Brunnian (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Aditya Ex Machina 08:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer above comment, the foyer setup may or not be notable, but being a "child" of a notable idea isn't notable in itself. At the most that would get this a mention in the article about the Foyer setup. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't quite see that the mention of construction saves this. Geschichte (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Lost and found (Short film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7 A1. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap Chor Ee[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply doesn't seem notable to me. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Delete nor me. Reywas92^Talk 03:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply does seem notable to me. http://www.penang-traveltips.com/house-of-yeap-chor-ee.htm is not a reliable source I presume? Polarpanda (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of a whole book, and the Google Books link spoon-fed above leads to plenty more sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, but article needs work. fetchcomms☛ 03:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plainly notable. Chicago Tribune amongst others. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Shouxin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think a single corruption scandal makes this person notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are numerous hits from verified sources (books, academic sources, news) that show this woman to be notable. I'll work on the article if I have the time. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The spoon-fed Google Books link above leads to hundreds of sources showing notability. Is it really too much to expect that an administrator, of all people, will take a few seconds to click on the automatically provided search results to avoid wasting everyone else's time with AfD discussions about articles with such obvious notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google books search reveals a lot of coverage from several different books, fully satisfying notability through "significant coverage". Malinaccier (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Beyond[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a non-notable film whose only claim to fame is that it is Nicholas Clay's last film. Author was asked to provide reasons for notability after they removed a prod. Originally given twenty minutes before an AfD, that spread to two hours out of a wish to not bite the newbies. So far, only evidence of notability has been the above statement about Clay, as said in their edit summary here. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likewise, unable to find significant coverage of the film. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 01:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - re-reading, although this is unreferenced he will meet the criteria. Thanks for the pointer David - Peripitus (Talk) 04:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Azurdia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Auto)Biography of a laudable and apparently fine person that lacks any sort of references. While searching for the references I have found that there are non available. His name is mentioned in a few places and he has a smattering of scholarly articles - but nothing that discusses, rather than mentions, him. Does not appear to have attracted sufficient interest from reliable sources to meet any of the notability requirements. Peripitus (Talk) 00:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a cabinet-level minister of a country, he passes WP:POLITICIAN, and Google books bears out this claim about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mitzvah Campaigns. Even though AfD is not the correct venue for merge discussions, it is pointless to close this just to have the same discussion all over again. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tefillin campaign[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge and Redirect this page to either Mitzvah Campaigns or the main Tefillin articles. This is a violation of WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTWEBHOST and it should not be allowed to function as an alternative for Chabad.org by the now obvious pro-Chabad editors for Chabad, because Wikipedia is not Chabad.org i.e. WP:NOTMYSPACE. These so-called Chabad "campaigns" were essentially PR and recruitment drives of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shneerson to enlarge the Chabad movement's power and influence and such articles should be collected under the main topic of Mitzvah Campaigns each with brief sentences and short paragraphs summarizing them because they are not worthy of what will eventually become hundreds, if not thousands of such pro-Chabad articles that over-all function as obviously WP:POV-pushing for only one Jewish evangelic-type movement within Judaism that is highly controversial as it faces severe criticisms for Chabad messianism. Note: These type of "_____ campaign" articles should more accurately be called Chabad mitzvah campaigns since it is only that group that engages in this activity and it is no way representative of over-all Orthodox, Charedi, Chasidic Judaism or Judaism in general. A perusal of the main Mitzvah Campaigns article shows that it is about to become the springboard for infinite numbers of needless and often mindless articles, as has already happened with Public menorah now in an AfD, that would be shadows and nothing more in most cases of WP:POVFORKing of the main articles of all sorts of articles in Category:Jews and Judaism. IZAK (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the nomination for this deletion and timing problematic for a few reasons. 1) In the nomination itself the nominator inserts his own personal view and commentary about the Chabad movement in what seems to be an effort to swing the public view for deletion. Specifically the nominator says: These so-called Chabad "campaigns" were essentially PR and recruitment drives of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shneerson to enlarge the Chabad movement's power and influence (emphasis is mine). 2) The timing of this nomination: It was done during another AFD; Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_menorah which was created by the same editor as this article, and also seemed to be an effort to swing the public view to delete by creating panic that some editors want dominate WP with Chabad related articles. This is obvious as the current proposed article was created over two years ago and only now when the nom. got into a heated argument with the article creator and other editors (myself included) at the "menora Afd" did he decide to nominate this one also. The result of the "menorah Afd" was keep. It should be noted that shortly after this Tefillin campaign aticle was created, User:Chesdovi found it worthwhile to give User:Yehoishophot Oliver a Barnstar award for creating it. While the article is definitely missing third party sources right now, that can be fixed by tagging the article. The motive for nominating it for deletion seem an obvious result of the nominators conflict with other editors, and mainly his concern that there is an effort to dominate WP with Chabad articles. This should be dealt with by discussion, not by suggesting deletion, which is currently SIX articles of the same editor within only two days. Shlomke (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also find Izak's remarks very troubling and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Rather than discussing the article on its own merits, he seems to have embarked on a general campaign against Chabad, and any article related to that movement. Chabad has run a lot of different campaigns over the years, many if not all of which are notable in their own right, and there is no reason why there should not be WP articles about them. Whether this particular one is independently notable is a judgment call, but it seems to me that Izak is bothered by the mere fact that it's connected to Lubavitch. His accusation of POVFORK is ridiculous; there is no POV expressed in the article, and it's not a fork of anything. And his aspersions on the Lubavitcher Rebbe's motives are not only off-topic and inflammatory but also a tremendous chutzpah. -- Zsero (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Mitzvah Campaigns per above. IZAK (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: See similar AfD and issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public menorah. IZAK (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Mitzvah Campaigns. I don't know if this is POVFORK but is definitely FORK. Joe407 (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge Deinitely less notable and more of a fork than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public menorah. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Mitzvah Campaigns per above. I am deeply concerned about the way a handful of Chabad missionaries are trying to rewrite an encyclopedia into a campaign for pushing their particular theology. RK (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rewrite an encyclopedia"? Will you just listen to yourself? Wikipedia has how many articles? And how many of those are on Chabad-related topics? Chabad is a major sector of Orthodox Judaism, and it covers a lot of different notable topics, each of which is worthy of a separate article. Nobody is trying to rewrite the whole Wikipedia, or to take it over! -- Zsero (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge & redirect ad above. This is notable only as part of the more general Mitzvah campaign. Public menorah is a justifiable article by itself, but not this. BTW, though I think AfD may indeed be a good place to deal with disputed or disputable merges because of the visibility (i.e. I would not have been likely to see the talk p. of either article, but I do see whatever is brought here) -- it does not take AfD to do them. ` DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. As above editors note. Tangurena (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mitzvah campaigns with a "see also" under Tefillin, per nom. I also like IZAK's idea of changing Mitzvah Campaigns to Chabad mitzvah campaigns to make it more specific and identifiable. It is noteworthy that the Rebbe successfully used mitzvot as a kiruv tool, but Wikipedia shouldn't become a platform for side-by-side Chabad articles on every mitzvah. Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just opened the renaming idea to consensus at Talk:Mitzvah Campaigns#Rename. Yoninah (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Izak. We do not need to clutter up WP with articles that can be sourced into another article. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about the Smag's tefilin campaign, back in the 13th century? That and the Chabad campaign should either both be in this article, or both be included in Tefillin. -- Zsero (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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