Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 18 February 20 February >

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 Speedily Deleted by Splash. Non-admin closure, ascidian | talk-to-me 19:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keyframe - the Animation Resource[edit]

Keyframe - the Animation Resource (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The page is an orphaned stub that hasn't been edited in years (WP:ORPHAN), that's about an almost unknown site (WP:SPAM), that is written link an advertisment (WP:SPAM). Elbutler (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Podar Education Complex[edit]

Podar Education Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Total non-article poorly written and lacking content Jack1956 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In view of the work done on the article I withdraw the nomination. Jack1956 (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From looking at the PEC's website there might be room for improvement of this article, though it should definitely be tagged either for cleanup or as a stub. Proofreading to correct the poor writing style is a must.MarquisCostello (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete Had I seen this in its original state , I would have speedied it as purely intended to denigrate, as there was no useful content for an article. Now that a decent version has been restored, there are no problems except to watch it.. DGG (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC) DGG (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as WP:CSD A1, "No Context". May be pushing it slightly and I would normally say A7, but that explicitly does not apply to schools. There is no content here worth having, and if someone wants to write this article, they'd be fine starting off fresh. Cool3 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Change to Weak Keep.[reply]
  • Comment. I have removed the vandalism by IPs and restored the article to the last version by Naughtyhaff. Salih (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed some further personal commentary added by User:Naughtyhaff . Reviewers who have already commented are requested to take another look at the pre-vandalized version of the article. Abecedare (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, I was taken in by the vandalized version. In light of this new evidence, I am changing to a Weak Keep, also there is media coverage [1], which I have included in the article. Cool3 (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the relook, and the added source. We almost let vandals (most likely kids from the same or a rival school) pull wool over our eyes on this one! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostly Talk[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Energetically written but totally unsourced self-publicity/fansite cruft for an "internet talk show" hosted/produced by "Doug & Scott L" (?). No genuine independent third-party WP:RS coverage aside from a single WP:N#TEMP mention . LuckyLouie (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Searches turn up no reliable sources that can be used to support an article on this program, and certainly none are evident in the article itself. If someone can point to independent sources that establish the notability of the show, now's the time to do so; otherwise, there's no reason to keep. Deor (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hello, we have added reliable sources to the "External links" section of the Ghostly Talk article. We have also put our full names on the page. I would like to note that we were approached by Northmeister (talk} who stated that Ghostly Talk was notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Check the logs. I also have the original emails from 2006 when he created the article here. I hope this covers the issue though. Thank You, it was a chance to add some more info to the article Gtscottl (talk 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Added a "References" section to this article.Gtscottl (talk 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) You can't vote twice Verbal chat 08:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete unless references establishing notability are added before the close of this AfD. I didn't find any, but I hope there are some. Verbal chat 08:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the double vote. Never done this before. Can someone please tell me the finer points of notability on here? I have read all the documentation and feel that the Ghostly Talk article more than fulfills this. Again, we were contacted in 2007 by a writer here stating that Ghostly Talk was notable enough to have a Wiki page and now all of a sudden it is not notable enough. Look at the logs and you will see who it is who started the page. He was the one who contacted us initially. Please Help so this article does not get deleted. Thank You :) Gtscottl 06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is established by having reliable (i.e. unbiased, trustworthy, mainstream), third-party (not your group, its colleagues, or its supporters) sources for the text of the article. An article will be justified only when your particular internet radio show establishes notoriety outside of the ghost enthusiast community and trivial mentions in local media. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again, I will say, it has been justified for 2 years years here, now all of a sudden, it isn't? Gtscottl 06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of marginal notability but I think it meets the criteria. This is one of those grey-area cases where responsible editors will disagree. In any case, the article needs major tightening, defluffing, and better referencing. I made a start by removing the external links, see the talk page for the reasons. The article could be 1/3 its current size and be better for it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability has clearly not been established. I see only a couple of trivial mentions, unreliable sources and a press release. --Peephole (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you please point out the "unreliable sources"? I would like to know what is unreliable about them? - Gtscottl (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't independent and from sources considered objective, they aren't considered reliable. The key to article creation and content additions is basing these on citations to coverage from reliable independent sources. To information can be included from less reliable and primary sources, but the basis for articles is wp:notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep A close call on notability, but there is some and I think it's worth including in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a little note, there seem to be only two major contributors to this article and one of them is User:Gtscottl, one of the hosts of the radio program.--Peephole (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: .....and there is an issue with that? When Northmeister (talk) contacted us to let us know he was creating this page he also informed me that I could edit and update the page. I am not allowed to ask questions and request help to improve the article so it can stay up? Gtscottl (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note- If the article's origins are examined, I think most will agree that User:Northmeister seems to have created the page by the exclusive use of unsourced original research (and possibly a bit of ESP). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a pointer to WP:COI to the article talk page. He seems genuinely interested in trimming this article down and doing what it takes to make it fit, unlike some COI-editors who are merely out to promote their agenda. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 22:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Goodhand[edit]

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

Delete appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE: football/soccer player for a semi-professional team without any indication that he has played in a fully professional league. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 a no-context speedy, or as vandalism. -Splash - tk 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holt tv[edit]

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

Article does not imply any notability, I was unable to find anything regarding the TV show through internet searches. Aka042 (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC) undefined[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Fun Natural Fruit Ices[edit]

Summer Fun Natural Fruit Ices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN small-time company. A Google News search turns up nothing. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not finding any reliable source coverage, which is not surprising given the company went out of existence in the 1980s, but what we do know of the company indicates it was a purely local interest, which means it fails WP:CORP. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is just zero amount of sources out there to verify this. I would think even a defunct franchise would be easier to research, but I don't think the subject is notable as a business entity. Law shoot! 04:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan McLindon[edit]

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

Contested prod. User states that election to local council and youth parliament asserts notability. Actually, fails WP:POLITICIAN as has not (yet) been elected to international, national or first-level sub-national (i.e. state) office. This page will probably need to be recreated when, as likely, McLindon wins election for the seat he is contesting, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Frickeg (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article lead claims he is a musician and politician, but there is absolutely no mention of a musical career in the rest of the article... If anything, he's a local city councillor that is known due to one brief moment of live television chaos... Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BLP1E, as well as WP:CRYSTAL... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above arguements. Added as part of a pov push for upcoming election.--Dmol (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This claim—"Australia's youngest politically endorsed candidate"—could see the article worth keeping if it can be reliably sourced. If not, then yes, this is just another candidate article and should be treated in the same manner; i.e. delete or redirect to election article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a sidenote (and I'm aware the debate is closed), he is 30 years old. I can think of various MPs in various states, all endorsed political candidates at elections, who have been significantly younger than that - Matt Smith in Tasmania (1998) who was 20 years old at his election, and Jaye Radisich (2001) who was 24. Brian Burke was 25 at his election, and David Parker (WA) was already a Minister by the age of 29. Orderinchaos 05:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
-->
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cashplus[edit]

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

Article is unnecessary due to existing section on prepaid cards. Appears to be advertising.
(Sending to AFD on behalf of an IP) RasterFaAye (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No primary refs and it is unencyclopedic with no history, dates, no details on the company. Delete it and if it is notable enough the article can be recreated properly, there's no content to lose here. Mfield (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC) keep now adequate primary referencing has been added. Mfield (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable credit card provider, the first to launch a prepaid service in the UK, and the service usually recommended by independent reviewers. [3] [4] MasterCard adds gold prepay card Marketing 18/10/2006, Plastic help is on the way for 'disadvantaged Daily Record 27/9/2005, [5] [6] [7] JulesH (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JulesH has added independent references sufficient to justify an article. – 74  03:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xclamation point 05:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Versapay[edit]

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

Appears to be a NN company. The references are all self-promoting press releases put out on for-pay wire services -- does not meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Should have been A7'ed or G11'd from the start. All of those "references" are press releases from the company, and two of them are duplicated (the same release on two different websites). And the creator is an SPA. §FreeRangeFrog 22:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The company is in the same space as other companies appearing on Wikipedia such as Global Payments. The references are all company issued and are indeed posted to pay-for newswires but the company is also regulated so the press releases must be confirmed and approved prior to announcement. Pls excuse the ignorance but not sure what "NN company" means. External references will be added but we just started building the page. User is new but not SPA as will be contributing to the ecomm and merchant accounts section as there are few if any Canadian sources of information on the industry.Bogueart (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to editor that duplicate references were posted to show multiple sources as opposed to single source.Bogueart (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"SPA" is single-purpose account -- WP:SPA offers more information. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you PT Bogueart (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicating a reference doesn't mean there are multiple sources. Articles that are duplicated across multiple news sites are generally considered to have one common source and count as one reference. Showing them as two when they're basically the same makes the company seem more important than it really is. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A duplicated reference tells me that either the author is being careless (not a big deal), or that they're banking on people not checking them out. In this particular case, and being a cynic when it comes to companies trying to get into the Google index via Wikipedia, I'd say the latter. In any case, they're all press releases, which by definition fail WP:RS. §FreeRangeFrog 18:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why there is so much negativity on here trying to get legitimate information about a real company on here. The company in question is already on the Google index...that wasn't even the point of doing this...it was to bring information on the Canadian payment industry which is lacking on Wikipedia. Very disturbed as to all this slander, thought Wikipedia was not like this. In good faith, I will update the info to appease the cynics as to not appear like "advertising"Bogueart (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too caught up in the minutiae of this discussion, and please don't use scary legal terms. I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that there are thousands of unremarkable companies out there actively trying to get an article included in Wikipedia. Along with thousands of unknown garage bands. The issue at hand here is that the inclusion guidelines are very specific as to why a corporation might be documented with an article on Wikipedia. Something that reads like an advertisement, and even a conflict of interest are never grounds for deletion. Not establishing why a company is notable under those guidelines, however, usually is. And so far the only backing arguments to those claims are press releases from the company itself, which as you can imagine are not considered reliable sources. That's the issue here. I don't know that Wikipedia has changed much in that regard. §FreeRangeFrog 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, I have read through the terms and it was perhaps ignorance to reference press releases as opposed to independent discussion or sources. I will edit and see if that works. Bogueart (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unfair comment. Every article on here that speaks to a product or company could be labeled as "advertising"Bogueart (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page and references have been updated to be within guidelines. Please advise, if possible, any additional steps that can be taken to fit the perfect mold.Bogueart (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation updated as requested.Bogueart (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra McKay[edit]

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

Non-notable person... External links provided make mention of her, but not for anything notable... G-news searches for both names prove fruitless... Google can't seem to find anything more than social networking pages... Was prodded, but prod was removed by IP editor... Article fails WP:N, WP:V, as well as WP:AUTO... Adolphus79 (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Local TV news personality. §FreeRangeFrog 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my prod, main author has a coi --WannbeIP (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear COI with author. Parslad (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a COI is not a valid reason for deletion. Please base your rationale on the merits of the article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought not notable could be inferred, but fair enoughski, not notable and COI issues. Parslad (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Wing Fascism in India[edit]

Left-Wing Fascism in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined to delete per WP:CSD G10. Though soapboxy, I don't think it qualifies as a negative, unsourced BLP or an attack page. Seems to me it treats a legitimate subject and is supported by references. But I don't want to detag it without a discussion either. The deletion reason would be "negative BLP concerns outweigh encyclopedic value." Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which to decry what one sees as the evils of the world." Dlohcierekim 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, the entire article is a pov soapbox. The article fails to present a coherent definition of its subject. --Soman (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--this appears to be soapboxy to say the least; the article is full of weaselwords that have as their reference various blogs and other non-RSs. Legitimate news sources and even events (such as the Nandigram violence--clearly of an entirely different kind than for instance violent acts by Indian Maoists) are called upon to make some broad claim about left-wing fascism (channeling Jonah Goldberg?); there is no chance that this, as nominator suggests, could ever lead to an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Clear attempt at using wikipedia as a soapbox. Agree with Drmies's analysis on how the article synthesizes unrelated information from non-rs blogs, and reliable news sources to create a POV diatribe against "Left wing facism in India". (Incidentally, I didn't even find the term "left-wing fascist" used in any of the listed sources that I checked.) Abecedare (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete Soman wants to say, I have made personal attacks in this article. Please show me one personal attack that is made in this article. The citations are reports of official agencies and reputed international human rights agencies like 'Amnesty International'. All the quotations are well referenced and are in double quotes. This article is a genuine attempt at looking at the phenomena of marked departure of Leftist organisations from the Left ideology. The phenomena should be understood for academic reasons if not for anything else. Concealing ones record of flaws and curbing even academic criticism about it, is not in the best of interests of wiki. Constructive criticisms of the article are welcome, but I strongly believe the article should not be deleted. Michonuri (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC) — Michonuri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment, I had not understood G10 as exclusively dealing with BLP violations. The article in question is created with a sole soapboxing purpose, in my view that constitutes an 'attack page'. That is however a different matter, since now we are discussing a AfD, not a speedy delete. --Soman (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, You are retracting from what you said on my talk page. You explicitly said I was indulging in "personal attack", which definitely was unsubstantiated. Comming to this discussion, please come up with the lines from the article that you believe do not have references or have been misquoted or are not from genuine sources.Minten (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - clear soapboxing, not to mention falling foul of WP:SYNTH Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • strong no to deletion I agree with Dlohcierekim that it treats a legitimate subject and is supported by references. I have gone through the article and find that all the references are from genuine sources. Only one reference out of the 29, leads to a blog, which is an article written by a author who is being quoted. Many Leftist groups have been doing good work around the world. It is also well known that Leftist groups have been involved in violence and human rights violations like groups of other ideological leanings. Why should anybody have a problem, when these aspects too are being documented? Have we become intolerant even to academic criticism? Gabriel N (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment,I have put more references and removed the lone reference to the blog (if that would make any difference).Minten (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about these rediff references? And SATP? And the opendemocracy article? Drmies (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate topic. If one views it as POV, one should edit it to make it more NPOV -- deletion is not a proper solution at all. Collect (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, please elaborate further if possible. What should, according to you, be the scope of the article? Which organizations in India could, in an npov manner, be defined as 'left-wing fascists'? --Soman (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear example of original research by synthesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is clearly original research. The author, Michonuri, is writing an article about two Maoist groups (Naxalites) and one unrelated Left Front state administration and calling them left-wing fascists. However there is no evidence presented in the article that anyone has called them that. Nor does Michonuri explain in the article why he considers them left-wing fascists. Furthermore, there is no academic agreement on use of the term left-wing fascist. The sources indicate that some obscure political opponents have called the groups listed fascist or accused them of using fascist tactics. That does not prove that they are fascists, left-wing or otherwise. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some of the content here might possibly be useful in an article on political violence in India, but we would need to get rid of the unsupported claim implied by the article that the use of violence equates to fascism. Fascism has a specific meaning that goes far beyond just the use of violence, and shouldn't be used in articles, or article titles, simply as a term of abuse. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment--Phil, that is a good point, and it agrees what I see as one of the main problems with the article. Some editors above say that these references are real and all that, and that's true for at least some of them (and I wish that the authors had properly used reference templates, so it would be easier to see what kind of sources we're dealing with). But facts are one thing, interpretation thereof another. You can cite the Times of India all you want about incidents, but to turn that into fascism is a huge step.The South Asia Terrorist Portal--how is that an RS? It is used to support the claim that "Some Leftist groups in India have proclaimed that violent struggles form the core to their ideology." Well, I don't buy that, not on that authority, and certainly not to make the political and philosophical argument that this is fascism we're talking about. Then, as Abecedare says, the sources don't even mention "left-wing fascism"--Abecedare, I think that really clinches the OR case, if the SOAPBOX case weren't enough. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Original synthesis, nothing salvageable. — neuro(talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have boxes of soap which are less categorical soapboxes than this. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is about a topic that has not been the subject of verifiable, third-party, reliable sources. Putting links between <ref> tags doesn't mean the links satisfy WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personal essay masquerading as encyclopedic article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Per nom.--TRUCO 23:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Isn't the subject a self-contradiction? Anyway, this opinion piece is nothing but original research, and pretty bad research at that. Themfromspace (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essaylike OR.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Per nom, not to mention the stinky smell of sockpuppets and meat puppets.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are likely already articles about various political movements and incidents of violence in India, which are part of a reasonable parent / child article tree structure. Making a cross-section of a country's history and politics from this particular angle, the intersection of violence and place on the political spectrum, has an inherent tendency to create a biased article. It is also very poorly written from the standpoint of neutrality, weight, and clarity. Thus, even if this material is worth covering on the encyclopedia, it probably: (1) is already, and (2) cannot be saved from an irredeemably flawed article like this. It is better to start from scratch than try to fix an article this inappropriate. Wikidemon (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, merge or delete - If no reliable references verify that this phenomenon is actually called left-wing fascism, then the whole article is based on a false premise. At the very least, the article should be renamed, and all unsubstantiated uses of the term left-wing fascism should be deleted from this article.Spylab (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SNOW. (NAC) flaminglawyer 04:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Willis (cartoonist)[edit]

David Willis (cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable web comic artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hill of Beans (talk • contribs) 20:51, February 19, 2009

Says who? And since when are you a good judge? -150.135.92.31
Keep - The "They're a webcomic artist, so they must not be notable" argument has been tired for quite some time. He's one of a handful of webcomic artists who financially supports himself solely on income obtained through his comic, his work has been published, and there are enough pages on Wikipedia that link to the article covering him and his work that deletion would be counterproductive and detrimental to Wikipedia. -Awa64 (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pool Shark (song)[edit]

Pool Shark (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This song has never been released as a single, does not meet notability requirements, is completely unreferenced, and the article may contain original research. DisturbedNerd999 20:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slippy dippy[edit]

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

Looks like a non-notable skateboard move and perhaps a neologism. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#A7, article about company that doesn't explain why it is notable. Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DesignAShirt.com[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB.Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to DesignAShirt.com. Has a few links but they are press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qcl compliant[edit]

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

A phrase made up one day by someone with no indication of its notability. --kelapstick (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The End (Simple Plan song)[edit]

The End (Simple Plan song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another speculative page without any sources stating that this is going to be Simple Plan's next single. No sourcing whatever, except a claim that Lava's website says so, which would be a neat trick because they are now owned by Atlantic (I took the precaution of searching Atlantic's site and found nothing). This has happened before, please see [8]. While the song exists, its release is a clear hoax given that the original version of the page lists a chart position four months before the stated date of release. Tempted to make it a speedy.Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 5 News Broadcast by Jmac Film Studios[edit]

Channel 5 News Broadcast by Jmac Film Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NF - indeed, the studios this is supposed to be by turns up nothing on Google. Not notable, just too bad no CSD criteria apply... -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- sounds like someone's home movie project that may (or may not) have ended up on YouTube. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article gives no indication that the subject is notable, and I haven't been able to find any information about it - I suspect WikiDan61 is right, and it's somebody's home movie. Also, since it's written like a blog post (or perhaps YouTube comment) it would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic even if the topic were notable. FlyingToaster 20:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. I might have seen this on YouTube before and wasn't too bad, but the article is basically composed like someone's blog posting, which is a Wiki-no-no. MuZemike 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dolano[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, with no reliable secondary sources available. The only claim to notability seems to be that Dolano was (1) a follower of Osho, and (2) organizes satsangs in Pune - which do not justify a wikipedia article (as per WP:BIO) Abecedare (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reliable third-party sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Should have been A7'ed from the start. §FreeRangeFrog 22:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hey there, this topic may not be your cup of tea, nevertheless it is notable. Dolano is an important name in spiritual circles. If you filter Dolano, you can also delete entries like Ramesh Balsekar and other masters/teachers of the same renown. One thing that is particularly notable about Dolano in the world of spiritual teachers is that she is not a guru with a teaching and followers. Rather, she says that she takes people who are at the end of the spiritual path and "pushes them off the cliff" through her one-month process, "the last satsang", allowing them to awaken. Therefore, after her process, there is no one left to hang around and create hoopla, these people are finished with the spiritual path!! So from a certain standpoint this is the most notable thing happening in the world today. Who else promises to help you awaken NOW---not after years and years of following their particular system? And you can see on the web that many people know about this, even if it is not an everyday name like Eckhart Tolle, who does his work at the beginning of the spiritual path. As for reliable sources, please trust that the article will grow over time as technically-inclined people with an interest in the topic join the edit team. Wishing you all a beautiful day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tooplayful (talk • contribs) 09:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lets follow Dolano's advice and push this article off a cliff. Fails WP:BIO by a long way. Ironholds (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ism schism (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails notability guidelines for people. Matt (Talk) 07:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:BIO says 'The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.' Dolano is known for originating a significant new technique: 'Intensive Satsang' (aka 'The Last Satsang'), a technique to make people wake up to their true nature through a one-month process. More than Buddha can claim. :) Awakening is the goal of spirituality! Sorry if that's not your cup of tea but it's a big deal in this field, and that's notable. Wishing you a beautiful day, tooplayful — Tooplayful (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (strike duplicate !vote)
  • See "significant", though. It isn't just "does one person think it is significant?" it is "do newspapers or other reliable sources think the technique is significant? Ironholds (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lunatic Gods[edit]

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Cannibaloki 18:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lindstedt[edit]

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

This is a bio of some lowgrade right-wring nutter activist. It isn't dreadfully written. But it is extremely low notability and is relying on a pastiche of news sources to create biography. I already removed one section [9] that whilst trying to be fair breached WP:NPOV and was largely sourced from anti-fascist sites. We don't write liberal BLPs from stormfront...

As I say, this nomination is due to the article failing to meet the basic notability guideline (WP:NUTTER) and inadequate sources existing for a proper BLP. Scott Mac (Doc) 18:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As unpleasant as I, too, find this person's politics, he does seem to meet a kind of minimal notability being mentioned and published in several places. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that there are sources unbiased and full enough to write and maintain a neutral biography?--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. But then there are not about a great number of other people with bios here, especially those involved in politics. At least this article gives some basic info about him. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you shouldn't vote keep. "Other things exist" is not accepted (or should not, by our own rules, be accepted) on WP as a valid reason; WP:N, on the other hand, is. Sources have to be independent, significant and reliable, and I doubt some mentions in a local newspaper really work. I'll expand this in more detail in my rationale below. Ironholds (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was expecting to find a lot more information about this person, given the zeal with which the extreme right has embraced the internet. Alas, there's very little out there. Seems to me this guy might be notable in the fringes of the fringe at best. Definitely not notable, even for that exciting niche. It would seem that the only claim to notability here is the fact that he ran for governor in MO, but he fails WP:POLITICIAN even there. §FreeRangeFrog 22:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Martin Lindstedt may be a minor figure in Missouri politics, but he's definitely quite well-known in his southwestern Missouri local environs, and has garnered some attention nationally, as can be seen here: Terrorism: Opposing Viewpoints (2000). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lindstedt is a fringe character, but a well known one - and while my sympathies don't lie with his politics (or his religion), that's hardly the point. Wikipedia is here to shed light on variety of topics, some well known, some obscure. Lindstedt, again, isn't particularly well known outside of his milieu, but he is a player within it - and Wikipedia should maintain a page on him. Deleting this page would be petty and ridiculous.

  • Delete Irrelevant and largely unknown. Doesn't deserve a wikipedia page.
I didn't realize it was a question of whether or not someone "deserves" a Wikipedia page. Martin Lindstedt is actually very well known, among people interested in the extreme right, which I admit isn't likely to include many Wikipedia Admins, but that shouldn't be the prevailing standard. In any event, any number of far less notable people have Wikipedia pages (not to mention detailed articles on every single episode of "South Park" ever made - if articles are going to be deleted for lack of notability, there are tens of thousands which should be a higher priority than this - marking this article for deletion seems to innately constitute a deviation from a NPOV, and is pretty obviously being done in a retaliatory fashion for my involvement in the Stephen Schwartz (journalist) article). A higher standard seems to apply to notability with figures & concepts associated with the extreme right, as opposed to topics generally. Anyhoo, Mr. Lindstedt is widely known in his part of the state. If he were widely known in the greater NYC area, or Southern Caliofnia, or here in the Bay Area, that would presumably constitute some degree of acknowledged notability. I'm not sure why unique and controversial characters from southwestern Missouri should be regarded as less relevant than those from more prestigious sections of the nation. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're not, and if you are going to accuse WP editors of some kind of regional bias please either do it 1) more openly or 2) not at all. Wikipedia has base guidelines for notability that subjects have to fulfill; if the subject of an article does not then regardless of area it will (or should) be deleted. If the item has been mentioned in say, the New York Times rather than a local Missouri newspaper then that is a different matter entirely, but sources of equal value are given equal weight regardless of their geographical location. Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the unreliable nature of the sources, most of which fail WP:RS. Without reliable sources this article fails the central point of WP:BIO and should be deleted. I'll expand per source below (noting that WP:BIO says that a person is notable if they have been mentioned in "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject" in a certain amount of detail:
  • In conclusion: the references given are not reliable, independent or deep enough in their coverage of the article subject to allow him to pass WP:BIO.Ironholds (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Concur with Ironholds. — neuro(talk) 01:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a right wing nutter myself, I say delete. The guy is non-notable and isn't even exciting in the least bit. He did nothing. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. And even if that wasn't the case, this article has the most impressively shady reference list I have ever seen on an AfD. Trusilver 02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted - A7 by admin Philippe (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Matt (Talk) 08:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Volts[edit]

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

Non-notable author of seemingly non-published work. I cannot find any evidence of the existence or notability of the author, nor of the book in question. The author of this article (presumably also its subject) was adamant that he be given some time to complete this article and prove its notability (discussion mostly on the talk page), but he's now been given time and no indication of notability has been provided.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the subject self-published a work ("he founded Wave Publishing"). I suspect the line about "The 'Life Lesson book have gained notable attention, won several awards, and sold more than 100 million copies" is a leftover from the JK Rowling article the editor mentioned he used as the template.

I feel like the editor of this article has now been given time and the benefit of the doubt, and what we're looking at now is simply self-promotion. FlyingToaster 17:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - even if we ignore all the inconsistencies, and the complete absence of any reliable source, the only real claim is that he has self-published a book in a print-run of 1,000 copies. No way is this notable. JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and tagged as such. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Powers[edit]

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

Previously speedied article about unremarkable radio DJ. Speedy delete declined on the recreation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait - This article does claim notability by national syndication in WP:BAND point 10. While he's a DJ and not a band, the guideline does specifically mention DJs and syndication of his show is how I would interpret DJs fitting into point 10. I'm still searching for links and working with the editors/creator on references to the claims. The editors are vigilant in keeping this article by fulfilling the WP:Notability requirements and I believe that a little time and a little work will prove this article to be notable. In the future, please mention the issues you have in the talk page so that people can try to fix the article before it's flagged for deletion. Assuming good faith, the creators and editors have the information needed and it just needs to be fleshed out with a little help.OlYellerTalktome 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's a "radio personality" not a "two turntables and a microphone" DJ, so WP:MUSIC doesn't apply here. I understand that you're trying to help new editors (or more probably, editor) but I think you're going to be disappointed here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I'm not sure how to interpret that. However, I did find and am now making the edits to prove that he's syndicated in different provinces across Canada. I'll do that and then leave it up to the other Wikipedia-ers to decide as I'm now biased on the future of this article. Btw, the Beck reference made me laugh. :-) OlYellerTalktome 21:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He appears to be "syndicated" in one province only, if you consider being played on stations owned by the same company as syndication. So not nationally. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This article was written by Drew Powers himself. How convenient that his bio on the Edge's website links to the Wikipedia page. Even on the Edge's website, there's just a tiny blurb about him... the Wikipedia article is grasping at straws to make it longer and make him seem more notable then he is. Why else would be there so many subtitles for such a short article? Delete this article now. I lived in Sarnia and London for 24 years and I've never heard of Drew Powers or that radio station.--Sarnya (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarnya Do you know this for a fact?? 216.187.106.70 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 05:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cake in a mug[edit]

Cake in a mug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable ... many instances of a recipe can be found; but no evidence nor claim of notability exists - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article just needs to be expanded with more info from the sources. A cake in a mug seems to be something more than just, well, a cake in a mug. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While there are a lot of hits in Google; all that I viewed were just various ways of presenting the recipe. Even the two added to the external links section are recipes ... which clearly establishes that it exists, but doesn't explain notability. Why is a cake in a mug any more notable than making a cake in a cup, or a cake in a bowl, etc (both cup and bowl also have Google hits for variations on the same recipes - although bowl has other hits as well).
There might be something here to start an article on Microwave cakes or some other collective name ... but I fail to see how cake in a mug is anything more than making a cake quickly in a randomly available container. The only thing I can see about a mug over other containers is that a mug has approached internet meme status - but even then, it's more descriptive to call it a microwave cake. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with a redirect to Microwave cake. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I clearly added links to two notable major published news sources. That meets the notability requirements. I said this on the talk page already. It is talked about in many sources, and I would thinking Googling for the recipe and getting that many results would make a food item notable. This isn't a product that companies are going to try to Googlebomb to trick you into thinking its more popular than it is. Dream Focus 18:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do need to give us more info in the article. At least that it is baked in a microwave. Otherwise we don't understand why a cake in a mug is something unique and notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's possible to make cake in a microwave as long as it's in a suitable container (which may or may not be a mug). There's nothing notable about choosing a mug as a microwave-safe receptacle. The "links to two notable major published news sources" are just recipes, rather than news articles - one from a local paper[10] and one from a "How to" wiki. [11] pablohablo. 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re poss redirect to Microwave Cake - it's hard to see what such an article would contain other than those in my post above. Maybe redirect to Cake or Baking and include a line in there - after all it is just another method of cooking a cake. pablohablo. 10:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What a silly article. I have no opinion about whether to keep or delete. Cazort (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the WikiCookbook and use the source and other possible sources to write up a recipe. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You can, and people do, cook cakes in all sorts of containers, and there is nothing notable about using a mug. dougweller (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But its called "cake in a mug". If you found a recipe for something that popular, and its name that many places on the internet talking about it, then you could make an article for it. Dream Focus 02:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene & Jude's[edit]

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

This is a hot dog stand in Chicago. It has been reviewed by some food publications, but I don't know if that makes it notable or not. The sources don't seem to give an assertion of notability either. I'm sure many hot dog stands in the country have been around for a long time, most of which don't deserve an article. Firestorm Talk 16:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Firestorm Talk 16:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple independent sources. (cf Hot wiener)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will be happy to provide Toussaint with a copy of the deleted article to allow for him to work on it in his userspace. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of CSS frameworks[edit]

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

With few exceptions, list of external links. Probably speedy a3 material, but it's been up for a year and a half, with a fair number of editors. It might be better to keep it, though, so the links don't wind up in the CSS framework article. weak delete SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A3 material indeed. Do we have to seek compromises like this with spammers to protect an article? If they try to fill CSS framework with countless advertising links, giving them another page to play with doesn't seem the right thing to do to me. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject of CSS frameworks is notable, and there may well be individual notable frameworks, but there is nothing in this article worth salvaging. Any frameworks that are notable can be listed in CSS framework, but not as a list of external links, and if that article gets too big a list can be spun out as a summary style sub-article. We certainly shouldn't be keeping articles just to keep vandals and spammers away from other articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold and week keep. As the starting editor of the article in question, I started this article as a basic list for CSS frameworks due to the possible seemingly-quick fill up of the CSS framework article with external links to the websites of existing CSS framework projects. At best, I would like a bit more time accorded to this article so that separate articles could be created so that it wouldn't be filled up with so many external links; however, doing so may arouse some ire against the creation of so many articles on less-notable CSS frameworks, so I would also like to take time to pull up examples of notable usage of certain CSS frameworks through Google so that the articles won't look like ads or spam. --Toussaint (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toussaint, if you want, I can move it to your userspace instead of deleting it (if that's the consensus). That would give you more time to work on it as above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a category which will naturally enforce verifiably notable inclusion. -- samj inout 16:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No assertion of notablity.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manfredi Calabro[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a resumé. No assertion of notability. Also note the username of the page creator. ←Spidern→ 15:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of Harvey Milk[edit]

Legacy of Harvey Milk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Levineps (talk · contribs) copied the Legacy section from the Harvey Milk article and pasted it as a new article. I replaced the deleted content from Harvey Milk. Legacy of Harvey Milk is redundant, and completely verbatim to what I wrote, and what belongs in Milk's article. --Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reason to rip out the guts of an FA and skewer them somewhere else. ←Spidern→ 15:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is too long, something needs to be taken out--Levineps (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is not too long: it is 9,800 words, well within WP:SIZE and has been vetted at WP:FAC as well as on the main page.
  • Delete, no reason for this unnecessary split, which damaged an FA and was done with no attempt at discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not knowing the history of the Harvey Milk article, I'd assumed the split resulted from some discussion about that article's length. I could just about see an argument for a split on length grounds, but it appears there had been no such consensus (and even if there had, some material should've been left at Harvey Milk, as I said on this article's creator's talk page). If there's consensus conversely that the material remain fully at Harvey Milk then certainly there's no reason to retain this split. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong wait. The attempt at refactoring was WP:BOLD, and indeed probably should have had some discussion/consensus before it happened. However, the sentiment that Harvey Milk desperately needs to move to a more summary style, per WP:SIZE is absolutely correct. Per Gonzonoir, I have started a thread for discussion of such refactoring on Talk:Harvey Milk. Prematurely deleting this (possible) child article just seems counter-productive; let's let editors of the parent figure out the best refactoring approach, and see whether this child is the right approach.
    • Delete. OK, the refactoring has now been discussed at the Milk talk page, and there's clearly no consensus for refactoring, and hence no need for this child article. LotLE×talk 19:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious about where the notion that this article skirts WP:SIZE originates. FAs routinely run up to 10,000 words readable prose, within the WP:SIZE guideline, and quite often run over. See User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. This article passed FAC and main page day with no complaints about size; why the push to gut the article? This sort of activity is a real disencentive to FA contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close as speedy delete or as redirect, without prejudice to future creation if consensus is reached on the Harvey Milk talk page. This is not a matter for AfD. The issue is whether or not to create a child article out of an article that is growing too long to be manageable. The decision on whether or not to split the article, and the act of doing it properly, will likely take longer than an AfD and would moot any result we reach here. To avoid forking the discussion let's all go back to the article talk page and comment on what we think there. I hope that works procedurally. Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Levineps' actions should not be rewarded by keeping this around. He/she does this a lot; see this gutting of GA article Joe McCarthy and this unnecessary removal from FA article Bill Russell as two examples, both done with no prior discussion, no edit summary, nothing. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FA articles are WPs best work and radical changes like this one should be extensively discussed to avoid allowing the article to lose quality. In this case the split wasn't done properly because per WP:SUMMARY the removed text should've been replaced with an adequate summary in addition to the link. No prejudice against recreation after adequate discussion on the original article talk page. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if there is no usable sourced content in this article that doesn't exist in the history of Harvey Milk. If there is such content then merge it into Harvey Milk and redirect. Any further discussion of how to organise the content can then take place at Talk:Harvey Milk. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy99[edit]

Happy99 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Unremarkable and fairly old computer virus; there are literally millions of computer viruses and there's nothing particularly notable about this one.  – iridescent 15:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I wouldn't quite call it non-notable. ←Spidern→ 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh? Those don't demonstrate any kind of notability, those just demonstrate that as a computer virus, it's listed in directories of computer viruses. What gives this virus any particular significance amongst the millions of others? – iridescent 16:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Sophos quote demonstrates its notability. Needs to go in the article though! --Ged UK (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per added Sophos ref.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historical value, virus of late 90's along with Melissa, and Chernobyl that brought AV to mainstream attention. Article will probably need the resources of books like this and this to make the WP:N police happy though. — Ched (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had heard of this one and google news archive popped up 344 hits, with some articles comparing other worms/viruses to Happy99 as a reference, which itself implies a certain degree of notability. Cazort (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Surely being "the first virus to spread rapidly by email" would make it notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is or can be reliably sourced to mainstream accounts of notable computer viruses. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable per references. The article also labels it (with a footnote) as "the first virus to spread rapidly by email", which would certainly make it notable in virus history. Scapler (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir PA[edit]

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

Disputed prod. I'm not convinced this person is notable enough for inclusion. Martin 15:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep. The second article certainly metions him and gives a little background, and seems to be a reliable source. The article at the moment is more about the product than him, and feels a touch promotional. The first link isn't about him, and the third doesn't appear to work. I wouldn't lose sleep if this went, and an article about the product is probably more relevant than one on him. --Ged UK (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I can find no other sources about this person. The only hint at notability here seems to be this patent, but it's pending, not even approved, and certainly, not every U.S. patent is notable, nor does having a patent automatically make one notable--rather the vast majority of patents are NOT notable, so something else is needed here to establish notability. Heck, I even get more google hits (including in third-party news sources) than this guy! If he gets a page, I want my own page too! And that's just wrong. Cazort (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the person who seconded the prod with Wikipedia is not a resume service. This veers very close to speedy deletion territory as spam. This is also a WP:COATRACK. While the article has improved since I seconded the prod, I still stand by my former comment (although it is no longer a coatrack about his invention). B.Wind (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A patent pending for approval is not enough to establish the notability. Fails WP:BLP. Salih (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wattsfield Athletic YFC[edit]

Wattsfield Athletic YFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While there's a claim of importance (winning trophies), gsearch and gnews search isn't coming up with a whiff of notability for this youth club. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sed ipse Spiritus postulat pro nobis, gemitibus inenarrabilibus[edit]

Sed ipse Spiritus postulat pro nobis, gemitibus inenarrabilibus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This phrase might have independent notabilty, but nothing has been done to establish this in the article. Lampman (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm, part of a verse from the Latin Vulgate manuscript of the Bible. I don't know why this would be any more notable than any other phrase/verse. In any case the article only says it's "famous" and does not make a claim to notability. Delete, I guess. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much as I like Latin language topics, the English Wikipedia and its article titles ought to be in English. Some Latin phrases from the Epistle to the Romans might be noteworthy as English language titles (e.g. Quis separabit?) because of use as mottoes and such, but this phrase is not so used AFAIK. Not a likely search term that should be redirected to the article on the epistle, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Orphaned and unlikely search term. The article says it's a biblical phrase but gives no indication why it's important nor does it give any indication why it would warrant a separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finale - the movie[edit]

Finale - the movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTABILITY, this movie is not notable yet. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 14:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NF CultureDrone (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify - WP:CRYSTAL. It's too far out at this point, and there's nothing there that seems to indicate notability that would trump CRYSTAL. No prejudice against moving to main namespace closer to the actual release with more references. §FreeRangeFrog 20:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Nothing wrong with preparing an article in advance, but it's too early to have it in articlespace. - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF as the film is apperntly still in pre-production. Also, the plot summary is a copyvio from IMDb. PC78 (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Displacement theory[edit]

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

Essay, every last word would have to be scrubbed away to begin making an encyclopaedia article. WilyD 14:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not an article, someone's unsourced personal essay. Edward321 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While (m)y main overall belief is that everything started from nothing and just wants to be nothing again. It is the fact that everything wants to be nothing that drives the universe surely is a moving and credible creed, this still seems to be original research to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR Salih (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh so very delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it can't be speedied Computerjoe's talk 19:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Essay is not a criterion for speedy deletion. (It was nominated, but I declined because there's no relevent criterion). WilyD 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shame we can't G1 it :P. Well at the very least can this be snowballed? Computerjoe's talk 19:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stop trying to rush. There's no rush. Let the process proceed normally. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed, there's nothing wrong with tardy deletion. WilyD 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Computerjoe's talk 19:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke from orbit, scatter ash to winds. as per everything. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR -- Marek.69 talk 03:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is original research in the form of an essay. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birdy (music group)[edit]

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

Page was tagged for A7, but they claim some level of success with some song that can be reasonably taken as an assertion of significance. That said, I'm unable to verify it, and the speedy tag was disputed, so I'm bringing it here to resolve the matter. As I can't find any sources, I can't confirm that it passes WP:N, nor can I even confirm it's verifiable. WilyD 13:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This might be a hoax. You'd guess that this search would return something substantive. Other combinations seem to fail as well. §FreeRangeFrog 20:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant independent references, notability not established, fails WP:BAND. WWGB (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G3 as hoax. Birdy and its members are not listed in the three most important books on NZ rock music of that era, there is no such label in NZ as Music Magnet, and at that time in New Zealand's rock music industry it was a pretty close-knit community - certainly close enough that those of us involved in it would have known about any band with two minor hits and an album. FWIW, Birdy+"Calm Down" evokes no relevant NZ-based Ghits, and "First love and other sorrows" returns only two NZ-based Ghits - both for a novel with that title. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definitely a hoax. No relevant results in Google. I was around at the time and have no personal recollection of there being any such band. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searches on Lexis Nexis only return golfing-related articles. Nothing about a band. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - WP:HOAX, tagged as G3. Matt (Talk) 07:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is, in fact, some evidence to suggest it's not a hoax, but that "Minor hit" is just an exhaggeration. In any event, it's not elidgible for G3. WilyD 12:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What evidence? Given that they recorded for a non-existent label and their singles and album are not listed in Puschmann and Davey's "Kiwi Rock" (which lists all rock singles, EPs, LPs and CDs released in NZ in the 1980s), and as a kicker that "First Love" +"Other Sorrows" +Birdy -wikipedia returns zero relevant ghits, it looks pretty much like a hoax. And if it is, it's G3. Grutness...wha? 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, if, on cursory inspection, it has to be false, it's G3. WilyD 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not what G3 says, nor how it is interpreted from the point of view of speedy deletion. It doesn't need to be false "on a cursory examination". It needs to be "blatantly and obviously false". In this case, the information in the article is blatantly and obviously false. This group had "minor hits" that were never released on a label that never existed. As such this does fall within G3. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. it's snowing StarM 13:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Towson[edit]

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

Does not appear to match criteria for notability per WP:N / WP:POLITICIAN - currently unelected candidate, it's not a first-level sub-national election, and no alternative sources to cite notability for any other reason. Of the three references, the first would seem to fail WP:RS as it's by his political party, the second doesn't mention him at all. Only the third mentions him - but is this sufficient for WP:N ? Other articles by this author have had prod's contested, so bringing it to AfD instead. CultureDrone (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom (fails WP:POLITICIAN)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; easily fails WP:POLITICIAN. Frickeg (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Easily fails WP:POLITICIAN as being an unelected candidate. . I had nomininated this for a speedy delete and was surprised when it was declined. This and several others (since deleted) are being added in advance of a state election later this year.--Dmol (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't just fail WP:POLITICIAN but could be deleted under G11 as seemingly taken directly from the candidate's campaign brochure without any semblance of encyclopedic content. If the LNP are going to spam and astroturf Wikipedia, they at least need to learn how to be subtle about it, like most other political parties in Australia. If we were feeling generous—and given the blatant self-promotion I see no reason to be—we could redirect to the party or the election. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidate, fails WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 05:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Davis[edit]

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

Does not appear to match criteria for notability per WP:N / WP:POLITICIAN - currently unelected candidate, it's not a first-level sub-national election, and no alternative sources to cite notability for any other reason. Contested prod. CultureDrone (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except You Vinyl[edit]

Except You Vinyl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vinyl remix release - nothing to say why this version of the release is notable CLW (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

A Room Full Of Cute Vinyl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Minuit 12" Remix Vinyls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fuji Vinyl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. I'm withdrawing my nomination. Thought it could never be encyclopedic, but apparently, it easily could. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 07:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Packshot[edit]

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

Seems to me to be a dictionary term which is only been made into an article to promote a product. Not exactly blatant advertising, so I don't think CSD applies. I don't see, however, how this dictionary term is likely to be notable. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 13:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I agree with Lilac Soul that the original intent of the article was to advertise a website. I have cleaned up and sourced the article now. It's still a stub and the sources aren't the best in the world, but I think this is a notable concept and more sources can be found. I think the article can also be expanded substantially by an expert in the field. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the Linguist has done it again. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems an interesting enough term/phenomenon to keep in here. Here's another source: [18] Cazort (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I considered keep, but the arguments given for that don't seem to be terribly convincing; however, there certainly isn't a consensus to delete this article right now. No prejudice against another AfD opening up, but do give it a few weeks at least. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciklum[edit]

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

Not notable, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required per WP:CORP. Page was speedy deleted (G11) on Feb 18. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,

i see you put my page for deletion. My intention is to make a short entry about Ciklum and to place it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_Ukraine

I have used references and wrote an unbiased plain fact description of the company. I believe this company deserves an entry in Wikipedia like any other that is listed on the link I have provided above. My intention is to let as well other Wikipedia users to this page to their best knowledge.

I am going to one more section with articles about this company. Yesterday this page was deleted without giving me a chance to voice myself.

I would greatly appreciate your help here.--Ciklum (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As with most other articles about companies, the main argument for inclusion seems "this is a good company" and "it exists". To the author, who commented above, I would recommend going over WP:CORP before anything else. If you cannot establish that your company is notable for very specific reasons, its entry will probably be deleted. It's not enough to just write the article in a neutral tone. §FreeRangeFrog 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grumpy Keep First of all, it is NOT OK to come onto wikipedia creating a page for your own company when you have not made any previous contributions to wikipedia. You could probably get away with it if you created an outstanding, neutral article, and if you were a long-standing editor with a good reputation for neutrality, who had made numerous other contributions to wikipedia. So yes I am grumpy, and I would recommend, Ciklum, for you to refrain from editing this page until you have taken the time to become acquainted with how wikipedia works and have made ample contributions to other subjects. All that said, I see evidence of notability here: [19], [20], [21]. If you're going to expand to include other languages (Russian and Danish in particular), you will find more sources. My intuition tells me that this company is notable enough to be included in wikipedia. We should not let Ciklum's actions of using wikipedia as a platform to promote his company cloud our debate about whether or not this page should be included. Personally, I think it should be. Cazort (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also...welcome to wikipedia, Ciklum!  :-) And don't let my grumpiness scare you away! It's really not a bad place to be, you just need to learn how it works. Cazort (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you Cazort for your note, points taken. I will add more references today.--Ciklum (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not convinced, two of those sources are from press release sites so likely lacking in neutrality (unless the first ref is by the initiative rather than the company) - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Guys, I have just added more references to improve notability. To user MacGyverMagi: you can see that it is by the initiave itself. --Ciklum (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, since the article isn't written like an ad I think it should stay. Närking (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this moment, I still do not see any evidence for ...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources... as required by WP:CORP. Most references are press releases or blogs. Only the Dutch "Computable" article is a reliable secondary source, as far as I can see. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are 4 independent publications in there, computable (as was previously mentioned), itc.ua, internetUa, and establishingabroad.com. As for press releases sourses: as can be seen from them, they were done by Ukrainian Hi-Tech Initiative and not by the company. --Ciklum (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speak Dutch, so I can read the nl:Computable article, and it is a renowned IT magazine in The Netherlands. So that is one reliable source (if you like to believe me). In general, references in English are preferred here, see WP:NONENG. I myself cannot assess the relevance of the Ukrainian articles, nor the reliability of these sources. "Establishing Abroad" -- in Swedish: "Etablering Utomlands" -- can not be found on the Swedish WP (for as far as that counts with respect to establishing if this is a reliable well-known news organization). But is there no more news coverage by mainstream news organisations in English?
WP:CORP starts with: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable."
The verifiability of whether the non-english sources are reliable and independent seems to me in itself already a problem: if I say Computable is a well-known and reliable IT magazine, you have to believe me, but I am not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete (reconfirm as nominator) — Not notable: no significant coverage in reliable sources provided. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is unnecessary and confuses matters when we close; your opinion is already noted by virtue of nominating the page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The General Theory of Consciousness[edit]

The General Theory of Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay.. seems to be a summary of article creator's Master's thesis Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Obviously original research, article author has same name as alleged source. Edward321 (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gently. The author has written a thesis on consciousness and wants to share it, but until his theory obtains some notice in neutral, third party sources, it isn't going to be a good subject for a stand alone article. What I need, instead, are handy tips on how to remain conscious, but that might be a how to manual and not a good subject either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I am indeed the author and owner of the proposed material, but unless I get a professor to claim all rights on my theories, and sign on as a co-author myself, it's impossible to get anything published. No third party is neutral. Everyone has an opinion. Feel free to pass me a note where I might publish an article like this. I don't mind writing one, but I haven't found a place, yet. Most people focus on specific theories when they are searching for a general theory, and they all seem to believe that I "just don't understand" the implications of metaphysics. I truly do appreciate any help I can get. - Emilehobo (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understanding I do understand it will most probably be deleted, and do not hold it against anyone here. Still, like I said, any help in terms of finding a proper journal to publish my findings would be appreciated. - Emilehobo (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, entire content based on an unpublished Master's thesis. Looie496 (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both (G11 – blatant advertisement) by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 14:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vue 7 Infinite[edit]

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

Blatant advertising; user keeps removing speedy deletion tags Rcawsey (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related page because it's related to this one:
Atmosphere Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Prolog (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grave Digger (band)[edit]

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

This article does not prove its notoriety per WP:BAND. Its author and editors have had approximately 6 weeks to respond to the {{Unreferenced}} tag with no response. OlYellerTalktome 11:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per point #5 of WP:BAND several albums on labels such as Music For Nations, Noise Records and Nuclear Blast. Manni Schmidt was in Rage (point #6). AfD is not cleanup for unref'd articles. Lugnuts (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point #5 would work if the record labels were notable (which they are not). Point #6 would also work but the band Rage and Manni Schmidt, are also not notable for the same reason. If you look at it in the sense of precedence, anyone could create band, have 3 friends who start "record labels" then become notable by releasing numerous albums. Even the Rage article says that their 13th album finally "saw the light of day." This isn't an attempt to clean up unreferenced articles as it was marked as having no reliable references in my nomination. At some point, if no one can cite any reliable sources, the article has to be deleted. OlYellerTalktome 18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rage are also easily notable; please re-read WP:MUSIC. Having three friends "start record labels"? I seriously suggest you check out just how big Nuclear Blast and SPV_GmbH are before you bring more stuff like this to AfD. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Multiple albums on the highly notable Nuclear Blast label (irrespective of what the commenter above appears to be saying). Surprising that this has even been brought here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm of the opinion that none of those labels are notable but that's just my opinion in this discussion of opinions. All of the mentioned labels' pages either have no references at all or are referencing their own websites (Facebook, Myspace, etc.). Of the bands I checked out that are listed under those labels, none of them are notable either and either have no references or are referencing their own websites again. If I had the desire, I'd start a discussion regarding the notability of all of the labels, their bands, and their albums. I haven't seen a single source that's reliable under WP:RS. As you obviously know more about those labels than me, please add references on their respective pages. The tag on the top of the page was notifying the article's author and editors that it had no notable sources and needed them added or it could be up for deletion. At some point, that deletion has to come if citations are not added. In the future, please understand that my actions are in good faith as I assume yours are too. OlYellerTalktome 21:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment AfD is not about discussing your opinions. Nor is AfD WP:CLEANUP. That you do not regard, say, Music for Nations as notable (we have a notability guideline, not a notoriety one) is frankly surreal, given they have released records by Metallica, Slayer and Frank Zappa. Similarly, Nuclear Blast have released records by Manowar, Immortal, Dimmu Borgir and Children of Bodom. This is a far cry from someone's mate setting up a bedroom record label to put out a band's records, which is precisely what you were suggesting above. There is not a snowball's chance in Hell that this page, or any like it are going to get deleted on the basis of the rationale presented above. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment And yes, of course I am assuming good faith. I just feel that you have misunderstood the notability criteria. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Nine of their albums have charted in Germany, which is one of the world's biggest national record markets. Yes, the lack of 3rd party sources is a problem many music-related articles do suffer from, but picking one random band and start an AfD discussion isn't an appropriate way to solve that. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Nuclear Blast is eminently notable; did I count 4 albums on that label? Drmies (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:Music notability guidlines.--E tac (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. They're with a notable label and released on less than 9 charting albums. It meets the criteria at WP:MUSIC and the sources have been provided to prove it. (@nom: It's not uncommon for people to not respond to maintenance banners. You'd have to notice they're there to begin with. Nominating for deletion should be done with some research beforehand. A lack of sources isn't a good reason for deletion; an inability to find any is. A simple bit of Googling could've shown you what others had to find now.) -- Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy keep as I'm withdrawing my nomination. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 12:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skorovatn[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. The original creator keeps removing my template of notability and references, and since I don't want to violate WP:3RR, I'm taking it to AfD instead. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There's no assertion of notability, but there's good evidence that the place is a topic for academic sources. I also believed (though perhaps someone can confirm?) that places are de facto notable. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, but can you please add the notability template to the article again, then? And if the original creator again removes it, please report him to WP:AIV, he's been warned repeatedly not to do so. Again, I cannot do this because of WP:3RR. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like you've done absolutely right in your responses to the creator. What I could do is simply add a couple of refs to the article myself, so its notability is demonstrated and the notability tag no longer necessary. I don't want you to think I'm being POINTY, but it might save us all a headache. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, and I don't think you're being POINTY at all! -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 12:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes Deaths[edit]

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

list of people who died in Heroes (TV series). No sources, no meaningful content, no real reason to keep, and OR to boot with the "justication" added Jac16888Talk 11:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete First, I don't want to criticize the author, because I see this, and the other article X-men (deaths) as a test-run to see what the reception would be for this type of information. Second, there is a certain curiosity about who has been killed during a series -- the thought has crossed my mind to compile a list of the people who were killed off in the original Star Trek TV series, in which almost every episode had a gratuitous death of a crewman. That said, however, I view this type of article as too much plot summary for any work of fiction, and I would be reluctant to open the door for a series of such articles. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article will either violate WP:NOT#STATS, or will duplicate content that is or could be covered in List of Heroes characters. – sgeureka t•c 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicates information covered in List of characters in Heroes - Mgm|(talk) 09:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merely plot repetition. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. (BTW, it bugs me when articles are created with no Categories. EagleFan (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Randomly-chosen scraps of plot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Also X-men (deaths) is up for deletion, created by the same poor editor. Ikip (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-men (deaths)[edit]

X-men (deaths) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

list of people who died in the x-men films. Even I draw the line somewhere when it comes to fiction, and this is it. No sources, no meaningful content, no real reason to keep Jac16888Talk 11:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As with the other article, Heroes (deaths) First, I don't want to criticize the author, because I see this, and the other article as a test-run to see what the reception would be for this type of information. Second, there is a certain curiosity about who has been killed during a series -- the thought has crossed my mind to compile a list of the people who were killed off in the original Star Trek TV series, in which almost every episode had a gratuitous death of a crewman. In Star Trek, of course, one could compile a similar list of "temporary" deaths of the main characters. That said, however, I view this type of article as too much plot summary for any work of fiction, and I would be reluctant to open the door for a series of such articles, particularly in a series of films that have been drawn from a long running comic book series. Part of the action in any show includes people being killed off, because non-fatal injuries are not interesting. Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I recently learned about a thriller in which an injured woman is in a hospital hiding from a serial killer. The injury largely incapacitates here, which makes the film more suspenseful and in my opinion a lot more interesting than the general slasher flicks. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Information like this can be covered in film and character articles and in character lists; the relevant infoboxes for fictional characters usually have a status field where their death can be noted. There is no need to spin this particular piece of information out to a new list. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgm. Ben MacDui 15:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite, unless someone does a complete rewrite of the article and gives it references, delete.Smallman12q (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm fairly sure we've deleted lists like this before, but this is composed of randomly chosen scraps of plot. Shattering plots into many tiny shards and building a multitude of different collages of them is not the way to write an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Heroes Deaths is also up for deletion. Also by the same poor new editor. Ikip (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no real reason for this to have a separate article.--Unionhawk (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merely plot repetition. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue sky science[edit]

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

type of science apparently, which seems to have been made up by the creator, the only google hits are about the actual science of why the sky is blue. Article seems complete OR and has zero links Jac16888Talk 11:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Original essay containing non-encyclopedia content. -Atmoz (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR -- Marek.69 talk 03:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There are, in fact, some google hits for this term in the sense it is used here (for example here) but this particular article is an OR essay. It might be salvageable short of a total rewrite, but I'm not convinced. Anaxial (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term definitely exists and should probably have an entry. I have (as my first act as a member of the Article Rescue Squadron) reworked the introduction which should be able to become good enough as a stub even if the rest of the flowery prose is deleted. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article needs clean-up -- and is getting it -- there's ample evidence that the term was not invented by the article's editor, having appeared in sources from The Times of London to Nature magazine. The concept that the term represents -- theoretical research in fields thought not immediately practical or profitable -- is certainly worth covering. The article should be edited down to what appears in the sources. That scalpel of editing is the right tool for the job, not the hatchet of deletion. -- Shunpiker (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while a little gimicky, the thesis is notable. the Times debate does show the conflict. (when the verifiable source is an issue essay, then it's not OR of the article author) pohick (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article would benefir from careful WP:CLEANUP so as to improve Wiki. Since it can be so improved, deletion should not be an issue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly light[edit]

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

The article does at least say why she should be notable, but as it stands, this does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Doubt if it ever will. Prod contested, so here's the AfD. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTABILITY. It claims notoriety with one reference that is not considered reliable by WP:RS. OlYellerTalktome 11:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Same reason as mentioned above, not notable. --McSly (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artologik TIME[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. First 60 ghits all appear to be download options. An argument to keep the article (based on it "seeming no less notable than others in the same field") can be found on the talk page. No substantive edits to improve the page in 6 days. CultureDrone (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Easttom[edit]

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

I can't find anything on Mr. Easttom that wasn't written by the man himself. He appears to be on a crusade of self-promotion, but nothing is jumping out at me to support his notability sufficiently for a Wikipedia article. Lots of claims, nothing really notable. Bullet points two and four in the biography section may be borderline and warrant some investigation, but that's pretty thin. He also appears to be seeding himself throughout the wiki, if the opening line is anything to go by. What say you? Closedmouth (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I went through this article thoroughly and marked where citations were needed. There's opinions that aren't cited and the citations are not reliable according to WP:RS. Regardless of my opinion that it's an autobiography, it's in no way ready or suitable for Wikipedia. OlYellerTalktome 11:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yes it is an autobiography. But a. This individual FIRST appeared in wikiquotes NOT written by himself. So clearly wikiquotes finds the persons thoughts quotable. b. The person IS actually a well known computer author. A number of other living authors also have biographies in Wikipedia. Therefore beinga biography is NOT in and of itself a reason for deletion. c. There are MULTIPLE citations including links to wikiquotes citations of this individual. Other citations including the Computer Technology Industry Association website references to this individual, Amazon.com listings of his books, and Google scholar references to this individual. All of those ARE reliable links.

It frankly sounds as if you simply don't like the individual and therefor want him deleted. This entry is a biogrpahy of a living author, who was FIRST listed in wikiquotes (without his knowledge even), and the entry contains reliable links/sources. There is NO legitimate reason for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckeasttom (talk • contribs) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Chuckeasttom (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note At least one of the Wikiquotes was added by an anonymous IP (70.122.233.57) that has also been editing the article under consideration here. --Crusio (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator, OlYeller. Could have and probably should have been deleted as spam. Edward321 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article being an autobiography is immaterial, although it can result in WP:COI issues. The important point here is the subject doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's requirements for notability as verified in reliable sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No notability established at all. §FreeRangeFrog 19:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I guess I'm a competitor of his in some fashion, so I don't believe I should !vote. But given that I was the one who spent the time to turn his autobio into something approaching a WP article, here are my thoughts:
  • Based on this diff or this diff, maybe this AFD should be changed to CSD G7?
  • It's probably worth noting that Chuck easttom has already been deleted (through CSD) once.
  • Quotability != notability.
  • Amazon isn't a reliable source imo. If it is, I want to know more about how Mr. Easttom wrote a book on JavaScript in 1901.
  • Who's Who doesn't count towards notability, based on this and this AFD.
  • There are over 150 people credited at http://certification.comptia.org/security/about.aspx. I don't believe that all of them are notable, and I don't see that he's in any way featured.
  • http://www.experts.com/listing.asp?index=731 is not a reliable source, either. As it says at the bottom of the page, "Experts.com assumes no liability or responsibility for the accuracy of information that is presented in the directory. The listees are solely responsible for accuracy of content."
  • A search of Google News does show him with a few news mentions—a definite plus.
  • This Google search shows that he's written books that have been required for college classes. That puts him squarely within WP:Notability (academics) (per "4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." and "12. Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.").
Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant KeepDelete I absolutely hate this kind of self-promotional puffery. Unfortunately, seems to meet WP:ACADEMIC #4 as shown by Dori. I have done some cleanup in the article, but more is needed, especially references to his books and to the fact that they are being used as course materials. Some more cutting and slashing may be needed, too. --Crusio (talk)00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Change vote to delete per Dori: let's make this unanimous... :-) --Crusio (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep. I also think he meets WP:PROF criterion #4 (significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions). In addition to the evidence provided by Dori, he also has several widely held books according to WorldCat. He has at least one book, Learn VB.net, currently in more than 900 libraries worldwide.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Changed recommendation to delete based on the author/subject’s request below, as well as Dori’s point regarding BLP. In this case, the subject’s notability is not at the level that would justify keeping the article against the subject’s wishes.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable, don't see the significant impact, see minor impact, which will probably fade to oblivion, not going to be notable in the future, so not notable now. it may be met by textbook use, but then again... it may not, here we have may not, i think. --Buridan (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of cleanup on the article has been done by Dori and myself and think it now looks rather decent even though some references are still needed. I invite the "delete" voters to have a second look at the article and revise there vote if they think this is acceptable now. --Crusio (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i see no increased claim to notability beyond your bog standard middle of the road computer science instructor/professor. there is no thing that stands out that will continue to be notable over time, so i don't think he can be notable now. --Buridan (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the original author and subject of the article. I simply posted a very brief article to match wikiquotes from me (that I did not post, one at least has been in wikiquotes for years). A tremendous controversy has arisen. Even though I was honest when I first posted, used my real name, admitted it was me, I ahve people like Crusio now accusing me of being every editor to that page that he is not familiar with. And frankly some of the edits he and others did have a) taken out true and verifiable items, and put in things that are NOT true (I have been credited with 11 books, I have only written 10. I am credited with the wrong degrees [I have a BA not a BSc and an M.Ed. not an M.Sc.], and other errors). Frankly seeing that within 1 week of posting such controversy has arisen, I have been personally attacked by one editor who seems to have obsessed over me (he has posted 35 of the total of 100 edits, all in 72 hours, far more than the next 5 prolific editors put together, far more than I even did initially publishing, and he then publically accused me of 'sockpuppetry')and so many errors have been entered into the article it has totally undermined any confidence I had in wikipedia, and I don't want my name associated with it. I now understand why NO professor accept wikipedia cites as a source. I strongly support the deletion of this article. As both the original author and subject, that help the case for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckeasttom (talk • contribs)
  • Oh, don't be so melodramatic, this is hardly a "tremendous controversy". It's a pretty standard debate when it comes to autobiographies, and your reaction is nothing out of the ordinary either. The current consensus is leaning toward keep, quit trying to martyr yourself and get on with fixing your article. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chuck, thanks for posting these corrections here (better would have been on the article's talk page), I have changed this in the article. Which book is not yours? Let us know and someone will remove it. As for my numbers of edits, when there is controversy about an article, I tend to make very small edits at a time, explaining in the edit summary why I do something. That sometimes makes for large numbers of edits. I'm sorry if that style irritates you, but I think it serves clarity more than if all are done at the same time with only a short edit summary. --Crusio (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
under blp doesn't creator's request change it to speedy and end the discussion?--Buridan (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, G7 only applies if the original author is the only significant author. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if the community agrees you are in fact very minimally "notable", or of transitory (brief, non-lasting) notability, you may be able to request its deletion.

It sounds to me as if that's where we are now. Is anyone saying that Chuck Easttom is more than minimally notable, or that User:Chuckeasttom is not actually Chuck Easttom? Unless that's the argument, this article should be deleted per the subject's request. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above, this person doesn't have the required sources to meet WP:N. Also, this is not the type of academic that I believe WP:PROF #4 was designed for. An impact is different from a significant impact. He may have made an impact, but will it last? Unless we are absolutely sure of that, we can't have an article on him yet. Themfromspace (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dori. When nominating an article like this, please consider that the author may not be well-versed in the policies of Wikipedia regarding notability and conflict-of-interest. Assume good faith, be civil and don't bite. Otherwise you're running at least as afoul of the community norms -- maybe more so, since "participating in a respectful and considerate way" is a policy, not just a guideline. -- Shunpiker (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Criticisms of Wikipedia. Merge new information and redirect (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death by wikipedia[edit]

Death by wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable neologism Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A list of people who vandals have declared dead? Keep this, and vandals will think that their contributions are actually useful. And we don't want that, do we? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) Keep - the phrase itself may be a neologism, but the article itself documents a notable phenomenon. . . Rcawsey (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Criticisms of Wikipedia. The sources cited in the article demonstrate that this has been notable enough to gain media attention, and to call criticism to Wikipedia (the quote from the Washington Post is worth repeating-- "Unlike, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia has no formal peer review for its articles. They may be written by experts or insane crazy people. Or worse, insane crazy people with an agenda." The fact that Jimbo Wales had to order changes after the death of Senator Byrd was reported ([22]) shows that this isn't just a dictionary term. I've considered the possibility that the existence of this article would inspire even more such abuses, and all I can say is that people are more likely to read about it in the news than to stumble across it on this site. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NFT, WP:NEO Sceptre (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Criticisms of Wikipedia and hope and pray FlaggedRevisions accomplishes what it's set out to do. MuZemike 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redir to Criticisms of Wikipedia. Yesterday I had speedied an earlier form of this article for a host of reasons, especially since there were no sources (and failed WP:N) and it was written very POV. However, now, in this remake, that the user has provided sources and made it less POV it may somehow be viable. However, I think this belongs as a subsection of Criticisms of Wikipedia because beyond examples I don't see how this can be a significantly in-depth article. Valley2city‽ 15:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Criticisms of Wikipedia. Should be covered there. Computerjoe's talk 19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Computerjoe's talk 19:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - To Criticisms of Wikipedia. It is a notable neologism and valid criticism with plenty of press coverage. There should be a section on the main article with that information. §FreeRangeFrog 19:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as synthesis and redirect to Criticisms of Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, after we Merge anything useful (i.e., sourced) into Criticism of Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is not about a word, but about an important issue and criticism of wikipedia; notable, significant press coverage of the recent case OdVardara (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I was unfamiliar with the criticisms article when I posted this AFD and info can be stripped and brought over, but I don't think the phrase itself has enough legs to stay on its own.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The phenomenon is very notable. It has created high profile scandals in the media; most recently, the scandal in which Ted Kennedy has been proclaimed dead has been reported by BBC, New York times, Washington post etc.
  • The phenomenon repeats itself, so much so that wikipedia community considered radical shift in core policies, as reported by BBC.

It is one of the bad sides of wikipedia, but it should not be put under the carpet. The name of the article can be changed, but an article about phenomenon is clearly appropriate; however, the current name is one used in the media and seems appropriate.PrecioUS-USA (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that merging the content into Criticism of Wikipedia would be "sweeping it under the carpet". We're not talking about removing the content; we're talking about putting it where more people will see it. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Criticisms of Wikipedia. Although this phenomenon is somewhat notable, I don't think it is sufficiently notable to justify a separate WP article. AdjustShift (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as above -- samj inout 16:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. Notability isn't established by sites using the term. Putting those separate instances together is original research. There needs to be discussion of this exact term and its usage in reliable sources. Themfromspace (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough. Name to change using naming conventions if necessary. Irishflowers (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WWGB (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) (NAC)[reply]

Andrea Johanson[edit]

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

Does not appear to match criteria for notability per WP:N / WP:POLITICIAN - currently unelected candidate, it's not a first-level sub-national election, and no alternative sources to cite notability for any other reason. Contested prod. CultureDrone (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. OlYellerTalktome 11:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's a candidate for the Queensland state legislature, and this puff piece is her advertisement ("Throughout her career, Andrea has worked in several customer service roles, particularly in the Hospitality industry"). Wikipedia is not the place to run your state legislative campaign. Print some damn bumper stickers. Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom (fails WP:POLITICIAN)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; fails WP:POLITICIAN. Frickeg (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. One of a long list of candidates added by this contributor. Not a sitting or past MP--Dmol (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't generally like "per nom" statements but Mandsford has expressed it so well, there is little need for me to add much more; save that we could redirect to Liberal National Party or the election article if we were feeling generous. The LNP need to learn some lesson from the other parties and get up to speed on how to spam Wikipedia or these will just continue to be deleted. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pékin Fine Arts[edit]

Pékin Fine Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Note - I looked for some reliable sources and found the text on the wiki article was copied and pasted from the Pekin Fine Arts official website. I'm changing my vote to Delete for that reason. OlYellerTalktome 11:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and copyvio to boot. -- Alexf(talk) 13:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I declined the G12 deletion and just removed all that text, leaving a stub behind. It's what one should do in those cases. Back on topic, I think there might be sources, there were some when I Google News-ed it. Regards SoWhy 13:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references and a quick news search shows that this is not a typical art gallery. This art gallery is mention by western media as the new hot spot of art in Pekin, this is a claim of notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The references provided only mention the gallery in passing; hardly substantial. The first reference doesn't seem to mention the gallery at all (if it does, I missed it, which kind of shows how little is being written). I found the mention in the first article listed: a brief interview with the gallery director about the Beijing art scene and the restaurant mentioned in the New York Times article. The google search provided above only point to promotional sites and the existing references. There's really no substancial coverage beyond the trivial at this point. freshacconci talktalk 15:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per the much improved article as it now stands. You see: we art editors are not all crazed deletionists... freshacconci talktalk 17:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:ADVERT. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Per sources, borderline notability is established here, and the copyvio is resolved (might want to delete that revision just in case). WP:ADVERT is all well and good, but notability trumps it. §FreeRangeFrog 19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:COMPANY because the coverage is trivial and incidental.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reference 1 and 3 are trivial. 4 only mentions the founder and 2 contains too little information to support a fully article. Lacks sources to meet WP:GNG and makes no other claims to investigate. - Mgm|(talk) 09:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: article expanded throughout with additional references. Existing comments in this AfD relate to earlier versions[23] and [24] so will need to be revisited for the current version. Ty 02:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per preceding comment. Listed by The New York Times as amongst the five "top museums and galleries" in Beijing. There are multiple references in major sources, and even when the gallery is not the main subject, the mentions are not trivial, as the gallery owner is consistently seen as a significant figure to quote on topics. Ty 02:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good material..Modernist (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Unwed Brides[edit]

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

de-PRODed with no explanation. No reliable sources found. Probable hoax. Bluemask (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pontoid race[edit]

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

I can't find any mention of this 'race' on Google books or scholar dougweller (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A7 doesn't apply since it's not about a real person, organization or web content. -Atmoz (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be about the types of article listed specifically, thus the 'etc.' in the list. OlYellerTalktome 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should Turanoid race by the same editor be added to this AfD? Edward321 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think so. That article is a mess but the term, however rarely, is real, eg [25]. I'm not sure whether Turko-Tatar is used more than Turanoid, but Turko-Tatar itself is meant to be a dab page which isn't (a dab page). dougweller (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Mediterranean race as possible search term. Cannot find any mention of this particular "sub-race". -Atmoz (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - This is a WP:HOAX for the love of god, an actual racial sub-group with two Google books results? Nuke it. §FreeRangeFrog 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong consensus to keep this article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Newton in popular culture[edit]

Isaac Newton in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is self confessed "fan cruft" according to the author. If this was by itself on the Isaac Newton article it would be removed per WP:Trivia. DFS454 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I have now changed my opinion. I initially tried to withdraw this but am told it is not possible. See comment below--DFS454 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - This section should be in the Issac Newton article. As for WP:Trivia, this doesn't quite fall into this category. Trivia "should be avoided" and "is better presented in an organized way." That being said, a trivia page should definitely be deleted and the information moved to the Issac Newton article and placed in its respective sections. OlYellerTalktome 09:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand a rather insignificant article at this point, but there's a lot more to be said--the article is capable of development. There are probably a few dozen novels (worlcat hs 28) and there will be all te representations in games and other media. There are some very distinctive uses in Poetry and Art (he was a major theme for Blake, as a representative of the rationalistic part of the world he did not approve of). There's enoguh content here, if its done right, and not just this very basic start. Incomplete as it is, it did pick up the major contemporary work, the one by Stephenson. We do not delete articles if they have the potential for improvement. . "cruft" has only one meaning, which is IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people agreeing with you. The information there could be considered 'encyclopedic' but as of right now it's a trivia page according to WP:Trivia. If you flesh out this article, it's a plethora of information about Isaac Newton which, by definition, should go under the article Isaac Newton. OlYellerTalktome 12:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into the Issac Newton article where it fit quite nicely until it was split out prematurely a few hours ago. It's more likely to be expanded/maintained/improved in the main article where there are more eyes looking over it. If/when it's built up enough to warrant it, it can be split back out per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Right now it certainly doesn't merit a separate article -- no reason to prefer an unreferenced stub to an appropriate section in the larger article. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop an apple on this one -- This can be a small section in the Isaac Newton article. It looks like the reaction to the spinoff is going to be greater than the action itself. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- There's potential here for improvement that other IPC articles don't always have. Incidentlly, aren't we jumping the gun JUST a little? The article was prodded just half an hour after creation, and then AFD'd not long after that. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this back to Issac Newton where it belongs for now, per Bailypalblue. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's room for valuable expansion and material here. I formatted the thing a bit. The problem is that like all the other "in popular culture" sections or sub articles that are usually converted from trivia chunks, likely none of the information there will ever be sourced. But that's another problem. §FreeRangeFrog 19:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not merge - The main reason it was split is because it's so ... stub-like, and the quality of what is written and its prose makes such a contrast with the rest of the article. So no it does not fit naturally into Isaac Newton (a link is provided from there, howevever). This article is going through an FA review right now, and no article would ever get promoted to FA status if it were to include that section as it is now. Also unlike most cruft, there is actually something that could be said about Newton in popular culture (see DGG's comments above). Hence the split. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you thought the section was poorly written, you should have re-written it. If you thought it was worthwhile as a stand-alone article topic, despite your description of it as "cruft", you should have cleaned it up and found reliable source coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline before breaking it out. If, as seems most likely, you simply wanted to get unsourced trivia information out of the Issac Newton article, you should have deleted it. As it is, the material is unacceptable as a stand-alone article. Please see Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Trivia_articles for further discussion of why this is the wrong way to deal with trivia, and why articles like this should not exist. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, deleting trivia sections outright brings on the wrath of bots and editors who have a "thing" for trivia. I think anyone who has tried to clean up trivia is aware of this, hence the resort to spin-offs. WillOakland (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic, but the easy solution is not generally the right one, and in this case there wasn't even an attempt to deal with the problem the hard way -- not even a mention on the article talk page. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Virial theorem is poorly written, then why don't you rewrite it? We're all good at some things and we suck at others. One of the things I suck at it taking poorly written things I don't know much about it turn them into better stuff. You probably don't know much about the Virial theorem, and I don't know much about Newton in popular culture. DGG above seems to know more than most, so maybe he could expand the article, maybe he's got better things to do. All I know is including this section introduces a break in both the quality and tone of Isaac Newton as well as topical pertinance. Also there is no reason why this article can't become something like D. B. Cooper in popular culture. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The regular editors of Isaac Newton are the best-equipped people to improve the material, which is exactly why it belongs in Isaac Newton. And with all due respect, AfD is not cleanup; it's not DGG's job, or my job, or the job of any other !voter here to do your featured article cleanup for you. You took personal responsibility for the article content when you made the decision to split it out. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE in favor of a sourced prose discussion in the main article. WillOakland (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it original research? Are you saying that Newton isn't mentionned in popular culture? Or are you saying that Newton didn't have a significant role in "The Age of Unreason"? WP:INDISCRIMINATE could apply however.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an article based on "things I saw" without any relevant sources is original research. WillOakland (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, at best it's unreferenced work (and I say at best, because all one has to do to verify that Newton is has a role in The Age of Unreason is pick up "The Age of Unreason"). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're inserting an unsourced opinion into an article. If it's really so blatant, and important to the work and the world at large, surely there are secondary sources. WillOakland (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps if we HAD TIME to do so rather than get PRODDED/AfD'd 0.4 nanoseconds after creation we'd have a chance to improve the article rather than debate about its current state.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I consider all "in popular culture" articles to be inherently unencyclopedic, i.e. they are unsuited to the formal treatment properly associated with a serious encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't paint the world in broad strokes. Should we delete the very decent D. B. Cooper in popular culture because it has the words "in popular culture" in it? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's a third of a million Ghits for this topic, [26], this is clearly notable, and has lots of possibilities for good sources. There are lots of good-to-start articles that are "popular culture" articles (a whole category in fact), and many of those started out as stubs. I've worked on a number of them myself. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so space is not a problem, and tertiary sources need not be stiff and serious. The ongoing consensus of the community is that pop culture is acceptable for Wikipedia. These things take time, let it be. One may become very frustrated here if one sticks to a line of reasoning that all things of one type are "cruft". Bearian (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main article. One, it's not trivia. It shows how this scientist had an effect on things besides the scientific community which is entirely encyclopedic. Rewriting it into short prose section in the right voice would make it fit with the rest of the article. (To the authors, instead of complaining this was nominated for deletion, you should've referenced your work BEFORE posting it.) - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First as it stands now, this isn't "my work", I don't know who wrote this stuff and I don't really care. Second if we had some TIME (here defined as more than 32 minutes [27]) before someone tries to delete it, then perhaps we'd be spending our efforts towards improving it rather than devote our time to defend it against deletion. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some books and publications dealing specifically with Newton in popular culture:

There are more I'm sure, but that's that's an example of what you can find in a limited time if you actually bother looking rather than assume Newton in popular culture is the equivalent of "Jello in popular culture".Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our job to bother looking, but it may well be that this article can be made into something more than a list of TV shows (like Doctor Who) that have had a visit with Sir Isaac Newton. Mandsford (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for me, I think such a list a perfectly appropriate part of an article like this. Can someone give an argument other than IDONTLIKEIT why it isn't? I consider "it's trivia" and "should not be part of an encyclopedia" = IDONTLIKEIT. Myself, I don't like quite a bit of the content here, but I don't try to run the encyclopedia to my liking. DGG (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Very notable subject. Worth including in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge until / unless the material is too unwieldy to keep in main article. Among other reasons, nobody is likely to search for this so if you think readers may care about this topic, better to put it somewhere it will be located. Bongomatic 22:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable topic. Yes, those sources at the bottom of the page aren't enough to claim that Newton in popular culture is a notable topic. Next to none of these "in popular culture" type articles pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, they are nothing but a wide collection of trivial mentions merged into these articles to prevent their deletion from the main articles where the editors care about quality over quantity. That being said, I'm also opposed to a merge back to the main article. It's a featured article and has been worked on a lot and we shouldn't drop this load on it. If this article can't be deleted, it might as well rest in peace here. Themfromspace (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is notable. AfD is not for cleanup. AfD hero (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Albert Einstein in popular culture might be a good role model. Also, since "Newton" figures in Wordsworth as well as in Dr. Who, maybe "Cultural depictions of Newton" (as in Cultural depictions of Jesus) would be a richer topic. betsythedevine (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per DGG and AfD hero. Ikip (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Isaac Newton. No good reason to split out in first place. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listing every instance of something when it appears anywhere in popular culture is indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. These articles are magnets for OR and POV and are rarely sourced adequately to show notability of the individual items. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actually, trying to carefully find every instance is what's known as scholarship. Collecting is the first step, followed by interpretation. But such things are to a certain degree OR, and we don't really do them here. The article/sections on popular culture do not attempt to be exhaustive. What we do is include those references in works that we consider notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Limiting them to that is what makes this not indiscriminate, but very much encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of really important things only. (And some people think that public awareness of science to be one of the really important things, the first step to their understanding it, which will be even more important once civilization reaches that level.) DGG (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone seems to have implied a question to me of why I personally was not actively working on improving this article./ The answer is that I find it necessary to defend articles to the extent I haven't enough time to improve them. It takes time to build. It takes very little time to destroy. Trying to remove improvable content is the way to destroy the encyclopedia. I read the comment above, and some other comments,as indication that people think Wikipedia should cover as little of popular culture and fiction and such things as possible. Some are not actually attacking this article, they're attacking all such articles, one at a time, in the hope to accomplish by chance and attrition what has been rejected as policy. DGG (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this were anywhere else on the internet, I'd reply to you with "LOLWUT". But since we're on Wikipedia and I try to be serious here, I'll simply thank you for your philosophical exploration into the origins of scholarship. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You better believe DGG knows a sight more about scholarship than you do.--Father Goose (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOLWUT. (sorry, I couldn't resist!) Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep = Articles, monographs, and books have been written about this, therefore this is verifiable. Also notable, as he's the most important scientist of the second millennium and as a character Newton has a strong place in the fiction of the last hundred years. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A notable topic. At present the contents of this article are weak, but they are susceptible of improvement. Only lack of time prevents this from becoming a much better article. I would say that Alexander Pope's poem '.."Let Newton be", and all was light!' is also part of popular culture, and more famous than any of the items that are here now. (Pope's work was left behind in the parent article when this one was split off). Then there is Wordsworth's poem with the 'prism, and silent face', also part of popular culture, not included here yet. If people really hate 'in popular culture' titles, there could be a free-standing article 'Influence of Newton' in which all of Newton's extra-scientific impacts could be included, including his effect on popular culture. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion. If the article must be kept, Pope would make a good addition the collection. Themfromspace (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (no merge), for all the valid reasons above and because the dissenting opinions rally around WP:TRIVIA (a self-proclaimed style guide), WP:NOTABILITY (plenty of valid sources given), WP:INDESCRIMINATE (isn't on the list of "not"s), WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC ("Encyclopedic!"), and WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("Too bad."). If those are the best reasons anyone can come up with then this AfD shouldn't even have been started. – 74  03:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is an actual policy. Learn to copy-paste. So far nobody has provided a basis for what to include here and what not to include here except subjective opinions of significance (WP:OR again). WillOakland (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unambiguously. All the arguments against are nothing more than prejudicial views and misrepresentations of policy:
    It's not a brilliant article in its current form -- it's a stub with tremendous potential for improvement and an abundance of available sources on the topic. I'll add one more source to the ones listed above: [29]. On Wikipedia, we keep stubs and improve them.--Father Goose (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How ironic that you cite WP:VAGUEWAVE just as you are waving off a good half-dozen arguments without confronting them directly. Themfromspace (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A wave for a wave. There are no arguments to refute.--Father Goose (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not even the one from notability, which is what we mostly use to delete articles? Surely you can at least try to refute it, no? Themfromspace (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps you missed the part where there are 16,000 hits in Google Scholar, 100,000 hits in Google web, and at least 5 reliable sources posted earlier in this discussion. How much more refutation do you desire? Would you care to elaborate on what part of the "notability guidelines" you feel this article violates? – 74  06:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you, that's all I asked is for you to refute the arguments for deletion. Just listing policies and saying "keep it" isn't a refutation at all and amounts to really saying nothing. Saying why you believe this meets the notability guidelines is much better than saying that WP:JNN is not a reason to delete. Themfromspace (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am convinced by arguments put forward from DGG and Father goose. --DFS454 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of Newton himself is not at issue here. Stop pretending that it is. WillOakland (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lists are the preferred method of dealing with non-notable fictional characters. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of M.I.High Characters[edit]

List of M.I.High Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Those characters in this list that are notable are already covered to the same depth in the parent article, M.I.High. The rest aren't particularly notable at all - many made only one appearence on the show. Added to that is the fact that the list is completely unreferenced, and bordering on fancruft. TalkIslander 09:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The list of characters should be listed in the show's artcile (like wub stated). Any detailed information about each character should be placed in its own article about the respective character. OlYellerTalktome 09:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm all for character lists, but they have to be verifiable at minimum which these aren't. (In this case one-off villains are also better described in episode articles so they have context) -- Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list is already in the main article, so I don't know that it needs to be spun off. The day may come for the article to be divided up into characters and episode lists, though I'm not sure that it's here yet. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeDelete back with M.I.High. Keep the main characters as they are, ditch the minor characters, such as most of the agents. Themfromspace (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that's basically a delete then? All the main characters are already fully included in the main article, and were in fact copied from there in many cases (e.g. the Grand Master). There is nothing to merge that isn't already there... TalkIslander 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose the semantics are different, so I'll support whatever gets it done. Themfromspace (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at the main article, I find it rather long and unusual. Normally the character information is placed in a separate article, as are chapter/episode list. Its long enough with enough detail to warrant its own page. Dream Focus 10:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is the place we will send all the crap articles about the individual characters. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have articles that behave like recycling bins... if a character isn't notable enough to have it's own article, it can be accomodated in the parent article, assuming that it's notable enough for that. TalkIslander 19:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a deletionist, but the "list of" articles is where we send these non-notable fictional bios when they turn up. That's how we appease the inclusionists, if we start deleting the "list of"'s they'll just start recreating the bios. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if this is tongue in cheek or if you're serious about keeping the place where you send the "crap articles". Themfromspace (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is serious, although I must admit my delivery isn't very ;) On a more "serious" note, a lot of inclusionists concede the deletion of those rubbish fictional bio articles, if the "relevant" data is merged to a "list of characters" page. Where's DGG when I need him??? ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for why I did not see this, you must blame the nominator. I had originally deprodded the article, and he was bound by at least courtesy if not strict requirements to notify me; I will AGF, and suppose he had never realized this, although he's been here about as long as I have. DGG (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no strict requirements. As for courtesy? Perhaps, in which case I'm sorry, but if I prod something, and the prod tag is removed, you must surely realise that I will take it to AfD. I wouldn't prod it in the first case if I didn't believe it deserved deletion. With that in mind, it's kinda your responsibility to keep an eye on the article. TalkIslander 14:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for me, if I prod something and the prod tag is removed, I do not necessarily take it to Afd. I consider the arguments first. Very often I find the objection reasonable, or a promise of improvement worth waiting for. One of the purposes of a prod is to see if there is any serious defense, or if there is any attention being paid to a dubious article. i've always thought of it as a pun, a way to "prod" the people concerned into action. If it does it meets the goal even better than if the article is deleted.
And when I deprod, I do because i think there's a good reason not to, and I expect that to be at least taken into account. e person who placed the prod to consider the matter again. Please do not take it personally, but it is automatic inflexible approaches which are my evidence that it should be required. DGG (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Major characters are covered elsewhere. Notability is not established via reliable third party sources for these minor characters. The article is merely a listing of plot tidbits and in-universe details. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the preferred way of handling these. Notability does not have to be established for the individual characters in such a list. It would be quite irrational if it were, because if they were notable, they would go in separate articles. I point out to those wanting to delete articles like this, that the only chance of establishing any consensus at all at WP:FICT is through the use of compromise intermediate solutions such as this. If there is any difficulty in preserving such articles, the chance of consensus will be lost entirely. DGG (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability does have to be established for the subject of the article. Lists are articles too and must abide by the notability guidelines, this is explicitly stated in WP:STAND. Unless the list of M.I.High characters is in itself notable (third party sources and the like) there can't be an article about it. Themfromspace (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so you think that we need to establish that the making of lists of characters in this series has been written about by outside sources? That we need to find sources discussing just which characters should go on such a list? DGG (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to your first statement, according to Wikipedia policy, that's just what should be done. The second doesn't necessarily derive as a must from the first, although it wouldn't hurt at all. What belongs in the list is a different question than whether the list itself should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Themfromspace (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep standard listifying of non individually notable characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I would go through and really determine who is important to the series and who isn't. Not every character needs to be on a list.じんない 03:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per DGG. It appears that even lists are not immune from deletion now. So much for the great FICT comprimise. Ikip (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on Earth should anything be "immune to deletion"? That stance is entirely unsupported by pretty much all current wiki policy. TalkIslander 14:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DGG and current wiki practice/consensus. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list as compromise between "all fictional characters deserve stand-alone wikipedia articles" and "everything without third-party sources must be nuked from wikipedia". – sgeureka t•c 11:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. List of M.I.High Characters cannot be considered in isolation from M.I.High. Currently, the combination of both articles represents low quality content, but it can be improved. See Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and let interested editors work to improve it. Reading WP:WAF would be a good start. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this list is completely unsourced, provides no evidence of notability and fails WP:NOT#PLOT on account of a complete lack of real-world content which can be used to support an encyclopedic article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of a notable TV show. It needs improvement and lots of citations, but you can't improve a deleted article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rivkin[edit]

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

The undeniable fact that Rivkin has co-authored some books does not make him notable. The references are themselves not from appropriate sources. One is a press release and another is a staff list on the organisation's own web site. Searching for Rivkin on the Library Journal's web site did not reveal for me the quoted work.

I searched Google for Steve Rivkin, and was unable to find with any ease any reliable sources in the first 100 entries. I found a good load of Zoominfo and other stuff, but nothing that I considered would make him notable here on Wikipedia.

On the article talk page the originator states that he is working with Rivkin to create the article. It is a reasonably flat article, but I view it as self aggrandisement. If he were truly notable Rivkin woudl not need to be "working with" someone to create the article. It would be being created and worked on gladly by others. There would also be substantially more inbound links than from Jack Trout (a co-author) alone. My view also is that the redlinks to Estes Park Institute and Volunteers in Medicine are telling. So far they have not made the cut here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the credits of this file on Commons appear to state that Sbsnet is actually Rivkin. Thus this article is concealed total conflict of interest. This user is so far a single purpose account with few if anhy edits outside the Steve Rivkin article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant books very widely held, by major academic presses. In order of library holdings in Worldcat: The power of simplicity from McGraw hill is in 1650 libraries, The new positioning from McGraw Hill is in 1050, Making of a name, published by Oxford University Press, is in over 800 libraries. Ideawise by Wiley is in over 800 as well, and :Differentiate by Wiley is in 650. Wiuley & McG-H publish a certain number of managerial books of only temporary itnterest, bt OUP is free fro, that taint. These are signficicant holding for the subject, and I'm sure the will be reviews to be found---those library sales figures dont get therre without reviews also. The coauthors in the other books are varied, indicating that he is apparently the principal author. I do not care who wrote the WP article, except that , as is typical with COI,, he did not give the necessary specifics l. As for works about him, Google News finds a long review of the OUP book in Washington Monthly [30] Differetiatehas reviews in the Straights Times [31]; there is even an article in a Romanian businiess magazine [32]. Thebook "New Positioning is cited by 84 other works on Google Scholar. Differentiate by 77. New Positioning " was translatad into Italian. he does seem to be an internationallu notable business writer and marketing professional DGG (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Morford[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable person. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • KEEP. I am the this article's primary author. This article is written from a neutral point of view without hyperbole and bias and supported by evidence from reliable sources. This article contains substantial referenced and verifiable material from sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This article contains no original research; rather, cites accessible, reliable and published sources. The reader can find and verify these sources. This article contains no copyright violations. More specifically, Joe Morford is an known filmmaker (IMBd); award winning songwriter (Billboard). He is an established playwright (LA Weekly, Actors Equity, Backstage West, Glendale News Press); headlining club comic (Improv); and, touring college act (GR press). Though this article does not represent the entirety of his work, it does however, clearly exhibit a noteworthy personality and a vetted overview of the artist with sufficient justification for a listing.

Slagoog (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Davewild (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. As a creative person, there seems to be no evidence on several points such as being regarded as an important figure, creating a significant well-known work, or receiving significant critical attention. As an entertainer, does not appear to meet guidelines as a significant role in a film or television (well known), large fan base, or making unique and prolific contributions. Also, except for the IMDB link on the person himself, the other links do not mention the subject, are simply main sites and do not directly lead to a story regarding the subject, or are playbills, most of which I can not find his name. Sorry, and no offense is meant by this nomination, but the person just does not seem notable enough. At least not yet. Pax85 (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. The references given are not reliable (except for Billboard and the NYT) according to WP:RS. Billboard and NYT would be reliable but I can't find where the link given (or completely on my own for that matter) talks about Joe Morford. That being the case, there's zero support or evidence from reliable sources that this person is notable. Slagoog, I'm sorry but there's just no concrete citations. Find them and this article is go but as of right now, it's gotta go. OlYellerTalktome 10:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I disagree that this article contains "no concrete citations" on subject. There are concrete citations in IMDb, Billboard and GNP, all of which contain "concrete references" on subject. As well, I disagree the performer does not make "unique and prolific contributions": The subject has notable accomplishments acknowledged by respected publications (IMDb, Billboard, LA Weekly). Also, it is simply not true that "other links do not mention the subject" (in addition to IMDb): listed articles DO contain multiple and specific references to Joe Morford as writer/director/musician e.g. Back Stage West article/review, just to mention one. Furthermore, I posted the article on Joe Morford with the required references; in some cases articles were only accessible through the "archive" process, starting at the main website, frankly, this is how I obtained the information. In certain cases, I contacted the given publication and requested cited article(s). And to that end, I do actually possess PDF articles referenced, which were obtained via this archive access and am happy to share them. This is the same way I had to obtain articles on "Jack Nicholson" for example, in the NYT. The main website page was where I started, but, I had to follow the relevant archive process based on that contact information. If I have to do that for Jack Nicholson, of course, I should expect to do it for a currently less-known personality. Simply because something is not easy to find does not mean it is not verifiable. And granted, a couple articles were not easy to obtain (as I had to request they be sent to me via email). Yet, in some cases this is the only way to get articles from certain publications; this does however, not render them any less true, or, important. More specifically, the Billboard magazine article(s)/award(s) can be referenced, but, there is no direct link to this type of archived article on ANYONE, these articles can be accessed by several methods, starting at the Billboard link/contact, link, listed. Billboard charts are accessible by year, but, awards are not. Other sites, where the link does not require accessing archived material does not require the archive access (IMDb, BackStageWest, etc) but, Billboard archives can only be accessed through the main website and subsequent archive requests; case in point, the Beatles charts are listed online, but go to Billboard and try to find specific awards per year, via a link ... there are none. They have to be followed-up via alternative methods; even where verifiable. I can provide specific contacts at Billboard; including archive requests emails. But, I should also say I obtained this through subject research beginning at website. It is available to anyone. Simply because the access is not immediate and easy does not mean it is non-existent, or not trustworthy. To that end, I do have a PDF of the Billboard magazine centerfold featuring Joe Morford and am happy to provide. Regarding IMDb, it should be said that IMDb does not simply allow writers/directors to post/list their work (like YouTube or MySpace). ALL writers/directors MUST BE nominated, invited and approved by the editors there before they can be listed on IMDb, which is the premiere film website, and accepted industry standard. Frankly, I know of no other writer/director who is listed as such on IMDb and NOT listed on Wikipedia -- Joe Morford would be the first such writer/director. Does anyone know of another? Again, let me say, I have copies of all articles listed, in PDF form. I am happy to provide them. These articles were obtained by our production company in vetting Joe Morford for a project. Every article listed has a corresponding photocopy PDF. That being said, I think Joe Morford plainly meets the burden of a verifiably notable personality. And lastly, the extent of my posting and response is that I have written this article. I feel Joe Morford is noteworthy, and this Wikipedia entry is, in part, intended to provide the access to relevant information we have gathered so that others may access this info when searching this known director/writer -- one of the fundamental features of Wikipedia. And certainly I take no offense to the comments, I believe the observations are made in good faith. Plus, it is helpful in forcing me to clarify this listing. And in respectful consideration of others feedback, I believe this personality deserves the listing.

Slagoog (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy close Clear-cut WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human penis size[edit]

Human penis size (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ok.... I'll just... redirect this AfD then. Now... why is there a page like this here? If not AfD then merge with Penis. Had little or no encyclopaedic material other then troll fodder. AmaraielSend Message 07:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seems to me you should try to demonstrate why this article shouldn't be in Wikipedia, not ask others to demonstrate why it should be. Perhaps you don't like the topic, but the article appears to be well-sourced and a notable topic. Being "troll fodder" is not a reason for deletion. Why exactly do you think it is not encyclopedic? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  08:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-sourced article with (surprisingly) encyclopedic treatment, including the cultural and historic context of the subject. The only way the material in this article could be dismissed as nothing more than "troll fodder" is if all potentially offensive coverage of this sensitive subject were to be considered "troll fodder", but Wikipedia is not censored. A proposed merge with penis is outside the scope of AfD, but would be inappropriate in any case, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can think of no reason why it should be deleted. It's not the best article but is still very well done. The article is long and could perhaps be split into other articles. Regardless, it should not be deleted. OlYellerTalktome 10:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as troll fodder. NaturalExuberance (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no valid reason given for deletion. Seems to be a well sourced article about a notable topic. Any issues with the article could be dealt with by editing it. This page will probably make some people uncomfortable but that's no reason to delete. Given the length of this article and the fact that it focuses just on humans merging with the general penis article seems inappropiate to me. Dpmuk (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, but can someone please delete the misleading image under flaccid length. Its on semi-protect, and the guy's hand is pushing down on the right picture. On the left picture, his legs are not flat on the floor, his spine and femur are are a 45 degree angle. I clicked the person's name who uploaded it and he has a lot of warnings and etc... The left photo has his legs up and no hand pushing down on the pubic fat pad. The right photo has his legs flat down and his hand stealthily pushing his fat pad down, to make it not noticeable. 71.54.173.253 (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC) (i dont want my username shown)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; malformed AfD, and no reason has been given for deletion. Any decisions to merge are editorial. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Human penis size[edit]

Talk:Human penis size (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Human penis size|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can someone tell me whyy there is such an article? I mean it has encyclopaedic potential but other then that it's pure troll fodder.Not to mention even if you don't pass this Afd, you still might as well merge it into Penis. AmaraielSend Message 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Talk pages should be dealt with in Miscellany for deletion. Even though the page looks...interesting (to put it kindly), this isn't the right forum for talk page deletion. Nate • (chatter) 07:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BinaryStar Music[edit]

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

Despite web and news search unable to find any material coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Tagged for notability for five months—really ought to have been enough time to generate refs. Bongomatic 05:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • reopened article was deleted after discussion in 2006, 3 years after this a WP:CSD#G4 is too long a bow to draw, alternative would have been to send to DRV but this discussion basically serves the same purpose and can achieve the same results Gnangarra 13:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPEEDY#A9. It shows no proof of notoriety. Very straight forward here. OlYellerTalktome 10:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A9 does not apply as the article is about the record label not a recording.Dpmuk (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find any evedience of notability using google or google news. Dpmuk (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources... and especially because I've noticed that articles about obscure record companies are being used as claims of notability for even more obscure artists, and it's actually working. §FreeRangeFrog 19:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Ruslik0. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Miss Diva[edit]

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

Another highly-speculative 'upcoming album' article that fails Wikipedia:NALBUMS. Google says that the title has been mentioned on a few RS fansites - but that's all. The rest of the article's content seems to be pure rumour-mongering. The references provided for the release dates are links to a Ciara album on various sales sites. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and possibly WP:HOAX. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulation of cockroaches in the ex-USSR countries[edit]

Depopulation of cockroaches in the ex-USSR countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable urban legend. No academic sources. News sources do not talk about actual depopulation of cockroaches nor about the history of the urban legend, only mention its existence Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is there an English source somewhere? Spanish? German? Portuguese? Italian or French? Because my Cyrillic sucks. Otherwise everyone will need to take your word for it. It's difficult to make a call given the available information. On the other hand, for a meme or urban legend, the sheer number of sources cited there (including Pravda?) would make me lean towards a keep. Are you fluent in Russian? Can you explain a bit more what this is? §FreeRangeFrog 05:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having looked at it, Alex is right, there is no in-depth discussion of the urban legend, but merely mentions of it. This is one of those examples where an abundance of sources is making it look notable, where in fact it is not. --Russavia Dialogue 05:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Russavia. KNewman (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A real phenomenon of ecological interest. The publications are relevant, I checked a few of them & could understand enough to tell they were substantial discussions of the subject.. WP rtcle dfoes not have to give an "in depth presentation"--very few WP articlse actually do. it just has to give a sourced presenttion of a notable subject. DGG (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I do not speak or read Russian, nearly all the links seem to point to explanations of the alleged phenomenon, thus taking it's existance as a preconciet. Despite the excellent referencing, I would suggest that there's just not enough to justify keeping it at this time.

LordShonus (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it sounds like there are multiple substantial discussions of this topic in reliable sources so it passes WP:GNG. I'm trusting DGG's evaluation of "substantial". NaturalExuberance (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps the article needs a change of title, but it is pretty well sourced, particularly in comparison to most of our articles about urban legends. There's no reason that those of us in English-speaking nations would have heard this, but I see enough proof that this is as notable there as the cat in the microwave is here. Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, even if it doesn't count. So which one is "keep" the green light with Оставить, or the red light with Удалить? Mandsford (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They did walk away for a few years, at least here on the island... but they are coming back, slowly. Blame Canada. NVO (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glacial respiration[edit]

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

This article is poorly written, making it difficult to ascertain the notability of the subject. For instance, is this a fringe theory, or a notable part of Mayan legend? It does receive some Google hits, but none of those sources appear to be notable or worthy of reference. I'm hoping this AfD will draw the attention of an expert. FlyingToaster 04:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • still editing the page WillOakland, Baileypalblue . Mandsford,-Atmoz 74.47.194.235 Erwin85Bot, I am a professional geologist, and this is an organization of simple common knowledge into an environmental pathway. I am still editing the work and have not finished the post. -H2onE2 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. It's entirely the work of Marse, who has been spamming his bizarre doomsday book all over the internet. WillOakland (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as COATRACK article that tries to pass the theorist's modern ideas onto ancient Mayans. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Oakland that this is a promotion of the www.h2one2.com website and a book by B. Billy Marse, professional geologist. I think that as 2012 gets closer, the ancient Mayans are going to be mentioned more than ever before. Mandsford (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable original research. No reliable sources cover this topic besides the author's website and the spamming around the Internet. -Atmoz (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-published original research of the most crankoid sort. Posted by the author who is his only reference. Sigh. Anon, 20 February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.194.235 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly OR, and I'm not happy about the author's article on his talk page at User talk:H2onE2. dougweller (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the same reasons as mentioned above, original research and advertising. --McSly (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. without predjudice to recreation if non-trivial discussion in reliable sources can be found Fritzpoll (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and I (band)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND requirements. Record label is not verifiable. Only "sources" are from an old AOL blog. Various search strings I tried on Internet engines turned up only the Wikipedia article in question. Finally, none of the alleged band members were notable before or after they were purportedly part of this band. Enigmamsg 04:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - For a band that no longer exists (and even their website is referenced as "defunct") I would expect to see some claim to notability there - some sort of historical value. Apparently not. It's just difficult to search given how common you and I is. §FreeRangeFrog 05:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is worth reading, and is a reliable source. Chubbles (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD A7. Band gives no assertion of notability. I would also suggest that their album The Curtain Falls be nominated at AFD. Firestorm Talk 05:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - I can find no notable sources on the band or the album. AllMusic is notable but cannot prove notoriety as it's a blog (see A7). OlYellerTalktome 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Technically AllMusic is not a blog. It's bloggy I guess, in some cases, but I see it more as a sort of encyclopedia for music (with no limits to inclusion). Having said that, in this particular case I would not consider a blurb on there to be a valid source that establishes notability - anymore that I would consider this article as valid just because it shows up on Google when I search for the band, either. §FreeRangeFrog 08:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Allmusic is not a blog. It has a blog, like many well-known media agencies, but it is not a blog. It is probably the most comprehensive online database of music in existence, which empoys third-party writers to write about music. They do have limits on inclusion; they attempt to catalogue everything that's commercially available, but they only review or write biographies for material that they consider to be worthy of mention, just like a normal news site or review magazine. Chubbles (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it might not be a blog (even though that's how it's described on the wiki page) but I personally don't consider it a reliable source under WP:RS. That's just my opinion on where the reliable source line is drawn. OlYellerTalktome 18:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my statements about Allmusic per WP:NM#Resources. It specifically indicated that AllMusic is a reliable source. I can't say I agree at all but I'm not a policy maker. OlYellerTalktome 19:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're a policy-maker, you're an editor! --Ged UK (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The allmusic coverage is fine, and there are a couple of Google books results ([33], [34]), plus there are other mentions that while not perhaps significant coverage, do indicate that this is an important and influential screamo band ([35]). The band that Casey Boland later joined, Hot Cross, appears to be notable, with this Hot Cross review describing You and I as a "legendary band".--Michig (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Allmusic may be a source, but it isn't enough to demonstrate notability. For a band like this, multiple sources are preferred, and they should discuss the band, not mention it trivially. Themfromspace (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no major claims to notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per JamesBurns.... RP459 (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. these guys were influential in the screamo scene. also per Michig. With a name like "You and I" finding reliable sources via google is going to be wicked hard, but we shouldn't hold that against them. They were a notable level (Level-plane, members went on to clearly notable bands.Yilloslime TC 05:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Michig's sources , plus allmusic are enough for me. Notability established. --Ged UK (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Time to Keep[edit]

A Time to Keep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The authors of this play clearly wrote it on the basis that every pupil in The Thomas Hardye School who wanted a part would get a part. They managed to get the Grauniad to review it but I don't think that makes it notable. Sgroupace (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yes it got reviews from the Guardian and the TLS, but that doesn't really make it notable. Alberon (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not only reviewed by the two major papers in the arts field but it is written by two notable playwrights. TerriersFan (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with TerriersFan, notability is established. §FreeRangeFrog 19:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't know that notability is established, but I feel it deserves a chance to grow a bit. Cottonshirt (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reviews in publications such as The Guardian and TLS are exactly what make plays notable. The whole point of our notability criteria is that we leave it to the editors of such publications to tell us what is notable, rather than make our own subjective judgements. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United Airlines Flight 93. MBisanz talk 03:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa D. Jefferson[edit]

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

Notable event, but not person. Almost all content is in other articles, e.g. Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93. Contested PROD. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defying Gravity (Keith Urban album)[edit]

Defying Gravity (Keith Urban album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources (only source is for the tour not the album) no tracklist, no artwork Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Withdraw since there's some sources and a track list now. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Not a big country fan here, but I went to his website and it says "new album coming in March 2009". Not enough? §FreeRangeFrog 05:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It certainly is poorly written but that's not grounds for deletion. I'm not a fan of deleting articles where a discussion hasn't even started. If you find the article to be poorly written, give the author directions in the talk page. OlYellerTalktome 06:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is it just me, or did we used to actually try and add sources to articles with no sources rather than hitting the delete button? No need to delete, a basic Google search will yield enough verifiable information for a decent stub. The article has a confirmed title and scheduled release date so it's not a WP:CRYSTAL issue. --Canley (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Release is close enough not to trouble WP:CRYSTAL and it needs to be properly expanded not deleted. Alberon (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is <1 month "close enough" to dodge WP:CRYSTAL if we don't even know the track listing yet? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no track listing, no cover, hardly info on album other than the tour. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NALBUMS requires that "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the {{future-album}} tag." These conditions have been met. The record company has confirmed the release on 31 March 2009.[36] WWGB (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's several sources, but the article is in need of some cleanup IMHO CloversMallRat (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I changed my mind. It's better now. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lsongs[edit]

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

Just another run-of-the-mill media player that isn't notable, doesn't demonstrate notability, doesn't claim notability, has no sources, and doesn't do anything that every other media player written by Joe Bob doesn't do. Miami33139 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree with Miami. It isn't notable (in my opinion), doesn't demonstrate notability, and doesn't claim notability and has no sources. I believe it to be blatant advertising (CSD G11).OlYellerTalktome 07:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Integral part of Linspire and a few third-party mentions. §FreeRangeFrog 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That third party mention - I think it's a press release, by the company. That's not really an independent source. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linspire is notable. Individual components of it are not inherently notable without independent coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't wanna get into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but realistically, every GNOME and KDE and XFCE component has its own page. I think there's one for every Ubuntu admin tool as well. Why should this be treated any differently? §FreeRangeFrog 23:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ideally I'm not treating them differently, and eventually WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/all of it would be analyzed for independent notability. I'd like to see that all of these components, for any distro, or any piece of software for any OS have reliable sourcing independent of the subject to establish that they are notable independent of their major OS. Maybe these things would be better off as Components of XX. It is also true that Ubuntu probably has 100x the install base of Linspire. Any inherited notability of a component obviously decreases with the inherent notability of the parent.
        • So, does this software meet our notability requirements? Miami33139 (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since the guidelines are shot to heck, you have to look at it from the angle of prior art, so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be trumped. We have articles for every component of every desktop manager of every distro. We have unremarkable recordings of remarkable artists, and they exist simply because of the implicit association. Given that, and the lack of clear guidelines, my criteria here simply boils down to it's a component of Linspire. No better and no worse :) §FreeRangeFrog 01:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FreeRangeFrog (and also because the scattershod nominations of every audio software stub by Miami33139 is blatant bad faith, and he has made no effort to examine individual notability of products). LotLE×talk 23:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope we wouldn't keep something nominated in bad faith unless it were also worth keeping on it on its own merits, at which point it doesn't matter whose faith was good or bad. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've asked you to discuss with me ways to revive Wikipedia:Notability (software) to try and come up with a functional guideline. You stopped discussing with me, but keep leaving this attack on my nominations. In several cases I have given in-depth reports of attempts to find sources and come up lacking. Your comment is both a personal insult to my credibility and a demonstatable lie. Miami33139 (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      In every case, your "attempt" seems to have been to avoid finding sources. In several cases, I located good citations to software that you claimed had no mention anywhere, with no more than two minutes of effort. Moreover, in this deletionist mania, you conclude that every source the I find, or anyone else finds, must "not really count" because of one variety of special pleading or another. It is plain an overwhelming bad faith to nominate scattershod for deletion with no effort to establish notability, but just an a priori mission to deny even obvious notability. LotLE×talk 20:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That all sounds good, but... what about the notability of the topic under discussion? Is the best argument for keeping the article really WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LAMIP[edit]

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

Just another run-of-the-mill media player that isn't notable, doesn't demonstrate notability, doesn't claim notability, has no sources, and doesn't do anything that every other media player written by Joe Bob doesn't do. Miami33139 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • CSD G11. Product that gives no assertion of notability and doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than advertising. Firestorm Talk 06:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It isn't notable (in my opinion), doesn't demonstrate notability, and doesn't claim notability and has no sources. I believe it to be blatant advertising (CSD G11). OlYellerTalktome 07:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "this is a media player" is not grounds for inclusion. Google doesn't seem to help to establish notability either. §FreeRangeFrog 19:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome MPlayer[edit]

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

Just another run-of-the-mill media player that isn't notable, doesn't demonstrate notability, doesn't claim notability, has no sources, and doesn't do anything that every other media player written by Joe Bob doesn't do. Miami33139 (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It isn't notable (in my opinion), doesn't demonstrate notability, and doesn't claim notability and has no sources. I believe it to be blatant advertising (CSD G11). OlYellerTalktome 07:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete, tell me why this is important/notable and I might keep it... SF007 (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of notability whatsoever. Not an official part of GNOME (which would be a merit for inclusion) as far as I know. §FreeRangeFrog 19:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muine[edit]

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

Non-notable run-of-the-mill media player. Article mostly consists of a list of features, nothing unique. Miami33139 (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It isn't notable (in my opinion), doesn't demonstrate notability, and doesn't claim notability and has no sources. I believe it to be blatant advertising (CSD G11). OlYellerTalktome 07:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. States and demonstrates notability in article text. Please, let's stop this insane deletion nomination of every audio software that happens to be currently a stub, or underdeveloped. WP:NOTE is about whether the topic itself is notable (as this obviously is), not about whether the current article is perfect! LotLE×talk 23:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The reason this is notable is the fact that it's written in a relatively new stack for Linux (Mono). It's the same reason Tomboy is notable, even though it really sucks rocks as a note taking app. §FreeRangeFrog 00:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is an understandable claim to uniqueness. However, that's not our definition of notable. Have multiple reliable sources independent of the subject paid attention to this software because of that unique attribute? I am trying to find sources before nominating these. All I can find for Muine are blogs and forums. We must reflect notability by measuring the rest of the world, not direct notability by including what the world has ignored. Without independent judgment of notability, our inclusion based on our claim of notability becomes a collective Original Research. Miami33139 (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reading through Ghits shows that it's frequently compared to the other, more-popular media players. There's a supported packaging of it for Ubuntu here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIMP[edit]

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

Non-notable media player. Doesn't claim to be notable. No sources other than the web pages for the software. Article mostly consists of a list of features common to most every other media player, Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. Miami33139 (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. Seems to exist only because they needed another entry in that already crowded infobox. §FreeRangeFrog 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I believe it to be blatant advertising (CSD G11). OlYellerTalktome 07:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam with citations. Themfromspace (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe Carolina[edit]

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

Unsourced, appears to fail both NMG, both criteria 1 and 4. Sceptre (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable; fails WP:BAND. It's another case of the record label article being used to get a foot on the door and claim notability. §FreeRangeFrog 04:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reversing, band charted on the Billboard 200 = meets WP:MUSIC. And that's a wrap folks. §FreeRangeFrog 05:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unless we consider that "heatseekers" chart to be a valid measure of notability? §FreeRangeFrog 04:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kagu (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable media player. Does not claim notability. Unsourced. In searching for sources that would make this a notable player I found Kagu got one minor review in Ars Technica when it was first created in 2007. It has not been updated since 2007. It has not created news since and being abandoned, is unlikely to become notable. It did not meet our notability requirements in 2007 and does not now. Miami33139 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I did reference check myself and came up with nothing. Does not seem to meet notability guidelines.WackoJackO 07:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It isn't notable (like all the others), doesn't demonstrate notability, and doesn't claim notability. I believe it to be blatant advertising (CSD G11). OlYellerTalktome 07:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Handshake[edit]

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

Unsourced, appears to fail both NMG, both criteria 1 and 4. Sceptre (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those citations given are reliable sources under WP:RS. The bands website and blogs are especially flagrant and not being reliable. OlYellerTalktome 12:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe them to be, in accordance with WP:RS; "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." We're talking about an alternative, punk electronic band, so your first port of call, after Allmusic, is going to be the alternative, punk electronic band newswires. At the end of the day it's about context. IMHO.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic is not a blog; it's a highly useful third-party database. Alternative Press is a reliable source; it's the biggest paper magazine that covers this kind of music. Likewise with Blabbermouth.net, a well-known hard music news site, and the actual blog posts, which are blogs of newspapers. I see no viable reason to treat them differently than material from the same source that's not labeled "blog". Lastly, third-party sources need not be notable in their own right to be considered viable sources. Chubbles (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't consider those to be reliable sources under WP:RS. That's just my opinion on where the reliable source line is drawn. OlYellerTalktome 18:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my statements about Allmusic per WP:NM#Resources. It specifically indicated that AllMusic is a reliable source. I can't say I agree at all but I'm not a policy maker. OlYellerTalktome 19:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I consider AllMusic to be a valid source in some cases. Again, you can draw a parallel between AM and Wikipedia, with both being reliable in some cases and not on others. Coverage of artists there is not always uniform to their notability and viceversa. Normally I'd reverse my delete vote but I think some of the sources given by Esradekan are borderline at best, and I'm less and less amenable to the argument that releases under a record label automatically squeak the subject by WP:MUSIC, because I think some of the record companies abuse that to promote their non-notable artists here. §FreeRangeFrog 22:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BC13 - EP (brokeNCYDE EP)[edit]

BC13 - EP (brokeNCYDE EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Differs from the over BC13 albums in that it was released via a label. That said, this EP isn't notable because the band isn't that notable either. Sceptre (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BC13 Mix (brokeNCYDE EP)[edit]

BC13 Mix (brokeNCYDE EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-released album not-notable under WP:NMG#Albums Sceptre (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BC13 (brokeNCYDE album)[edit]

BC13 (brokeNCYDE album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-released album not-notable under WP:NMG#Albums Sceptre (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Broken! (brokeNCYDE album)[edit]

The Broken! (brokeNCYDE album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-released album not-notable under WP:NMG#Albums Sceptre (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrokeNCYDE[edit]

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

Cookie-cutter YouTube band who fail to pass WP:WEB and WP:MUSIC. I know what you're thinking, "it has sources!". These sources were present in the last AfD, which was showing a delete consensus but was kept on purely procedural grounds. There is no showing of notability, and given that the page Brokencyde is salted after creation over the last year, I doubt this is anything more than promotion of a non-notable band, but my hands are tied and it has to go to AFD, instead of being speedied. Sceptre (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the citations you listed are reliable under WP:RS. Especially the blog. OlYellerTalktome 12:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The three music sites don't seem to be professionally written, but the blog is. It belongs to the Dallas Observer. The fact that its music news reporting is done in blog format should not disqualify it as a source. Be that as it may, it's only one source, not multiple. -Freekee (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Alberon (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is close to no independent reliable coverage. Even the three sources used in the article ([55][56][57]) are borderline at best. As User:OliverTwisted says on the talk page [58]: "After the Warped tour 2009 has launched there will be additional sources". Until then... Delete, and do what people think Rome did to Carthage, until somebody can show some real sources. Dendlai (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources given do not meet the required standard for WP:MUSIC. I notice that they are touring the UK in the coming months - perhaps that will lead to some reliable independent sources appearing, but for now the page should be deleted, as suggested by the previous three AfD's. sparkl!sm hey! 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl!sm hey! 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above.-Binary TSO ???
  • Weak Delete I voted to keep this article in the 3 previous AFD discussions; however the article is being edited completely in the wrong direction, getting farther away from meeting notability guidelines, rather than moving closer to it. Until there is recent press on the band resulting from one of their UK tours, or the Warped 2009 tour which should start next month, the consensus seems to be to delete the article. However, in response to the nomination comments by Sceptre, I feel I have to respond. In my opinion, this shouldn't be a race to see how fast band articles can be deleted. The fact that the band article survived 3 previous AFD discussions was not due strictly to "procedural grounds," but to the fact that it was borderline notable. At least 20 different editors have weighed in on this over the last year with very little agreement. Also, at least 3 admin members did not feel comfortable closing the AFD discussions with a group consensus of "Delete." As one of the most prominent national music tours in the USA, no band signed to play the Warped 2009 tour should ever be Speedied. AFD is EXACTLY the place for this article. I'll now yield the soapbox. ;o) --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first AfD deleted the article, and the second AfD kept the article. The third AfD was inappropriately kept. Sceptre (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the second AfD was deemed "no consensus" which isn't the same as "keep". So far, BrokeNCYDE hasn't managed to get through and AfD with a "keep" consensus. Dendlai (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No WP:RS. --Sloane (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: insufficient independent reliable sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources to esablish notability. And salt. The fans can request removal of protection and transfer of an userified article to the main namespace when and if this band becomes notable. §FreeRangeFrog 07:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human appearance in India[edit]

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

There are several reasons: a) The scope of this article is not defined. b) Vague term. Human appearance usually refers to physical human appearance like skin color, height and does not usually refer to clothing and ornament. c) Redundant topic. Clothing in India is already covered by the article Indian dress. d) No article with similar heading or scope exists in Wikipedia. One wouldn't see an article on Human appearance in Russia because the heading itself is too vague. e) The article is currently orphaned and therefore, serves little purpose. Incidious (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom's cogent arguments, esp b. and c. (though I'm not convinced by e.). Drmies (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or merge with Indian dress if there is anything that can be merged (perhaps the ornamentation?). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 07:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The content may be merged with Indian dress. Salih (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If there's info in this article that isn't in Indian dress (that should be), it should be merged. OlYellerTalktome 10:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (Aside: Wow! What a stilted article title). Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looking at the title, I assumed it was about when humans first appeared in India. — goethean ॐ 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Title is really vague. I wasn't even sure what the article was about until I took a look at the page. This article doesn't cover anything that hasn't been covered by Indian dress. --vi5in[talk] 20:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article has no Encyclopedic value--Suyogtalk to me! 05:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Human appearance in India?" What does that even mean? - Max - You were saying? 21:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged the discussion with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukthivicharam. DGG (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Yukthivicharam[edit]

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

No assertion of notability: FAIL as Majorly would say. Ironholds (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete A couple of hits of Google books indicate that the magazine exists; but those hits seem to be simply referencing contents of the magazine, and not articles about the magazine. The web hits are dominated by wikipedia and its mirrors and I didn't find any secondary sources discussing "Yukthivicharam". So, as of present the article fails WP:NB and should be deleted. But the nomination should be kept open for the whole 5 days, in case someone familiar with Malayalam, is able to locate offline sources. Abecedare (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foosic[edit]

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

Not-notable software. Doesn't claim notability. foosic gets 2 hits on news.google.com archive, but it is not about this software. It gets 71 hits on books.google.com, but none of those hits are about this software. If there are other reliable sources about this software they must be pretty deep. Article has not been edited in more than two years. Lack of edits = lack of interest = (evidence of) lack of notability. Software in general is not inherently notable, and run-of-the-mill media players and media tools are also not inherently notable. Miami33139 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Strongly passes the "Google test" with ~5k hits. Many of those are to discussions of the software/database in question. Hard to judge exact user base, but certainly appears plenty to sustain an (improved) article. LotLE×talk 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discussions are specifically not WP:RS reliable sources indicating notability. Please find Reliable Sources that demonstrate the notability of this subject. '"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.' 'For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources.' Miami33139 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you need to read more about the "Google Test" before attempting to use it as a claim to notability. Wikipedia:Google_Test#Notability. Miami33139 (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom, 5K hits on Google are irrelevant in this case. I was expecting to see very different things in the first 20 or so, like reviews, mentions in notable blogs, ArsTechnica, etc. Something other than just package references for Linux distros and the project's page. §FreeRangeFrog 05:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article claims that foosic is a library, not a "media player" as claimed by the nominator. Libraries are not reviewed nor do they receive coverage in ArsTechnica, so determining the notability of the subject by such means will result a flawed conclusion. I have absolutely no experience in this field and I have never even heard of foosic until now (despite being an amaroK user), but I will attempt to look for sources in academic literature. Rilak (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - He did say media tools. §FreeRangeFrog 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also did not mention Ars Technica, but mentioned searching books.google.com, which is the appropriate source to try and quickfind sources for something like this. Since it is not a product, but a programming tool, books.google.com should find references to documentation about using the tools, API syntax, or anything. Those sources don't appear to exist. Miami33139 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have conducted a thorough (relative to my experience on the subject of acoustic fingerprinting, which is none) search, and have found no significant coverage in any sources except for the foosic's website. Given that the author claims that foosic has achieved firsts in its field, it can be expected that other sources can confirm the claims, but I have found no significant interest in reliable sources whose scope is open source software. I must stress, this is not an indication of truthfulness of the claims, but of notability.
Additionally, from several fragmented sources, I understand that foosic was introduced in 2006, and that its author wrote the library as a research project at a Belgium university. However, I was unable to locate any literature related to that research project, but this may be because it is written in a language other than English. I have also discovered, from Google Code, that the author has abandoned it sometime ago and it is no longer in active development. Search in academic literature has located a thesis?, which mentions foosic in passing, and a paper published in Pattern Recognition, which I am unable to access. This suggests that foosic is not notable, so my conclusion is to delete it, but if new evidence is presented, I am willing to reconsider.
Lastly, in response to the comments regarding my previous comment: Firstly, while "media tools" can be used to describe foosic, the usage is not optimal. Secondly, my comment about ArsTechnica being unsuitable for determining the notability of the said library was directed at the editor who mentioned ArsTechnica, as suggested by the use of a separate sentence. Thirdly, Google books should not be considered a library of all published works, nor should it be considered to be a place where documentation may be found. One must also consider the amount of time it takes for a book to be published and the age of the subject. Additionally, the nature of open source software also means that sometimes the documentation for is the same as the source code. Rilak (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Pielmeier[edit]

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

Contested CSD-G4 deletion. Player has not played pro, not won a major award, has not played at the highest level of amateur hockey. While research may show that the player played in the DEL, it should be noted that it is common for DEL teams to have junior teams with the same name listed as teams in that league. This source shows that this player played for the Junior team. Player was drafted, but was not drafted in the 3rd round. Article previously deleted in 2007. Can be recreated when this player becomes notable. Pparazorback (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD for this article was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wes Welcher. Was not clear how to list that in the 2nd article box. -Pparazorback (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Dressed in 26 games with the Kölner Haie, but played in none. As a result, he fails WP:ATHLETE. – Nurmsook! talk... 02:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Pparazorback (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nurmsook. This player never actually played in the professional league. The nature of some Euro leagues is that their junior age players can suit up in an emergency for the main club. But this player never actually played in any games, he was essentially just listed on the score sheet. Can be recreated when/if he ever plays professional hockey or otherwise achieves notability. -Djsasso (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: His junior team (Kölner Junghaie, Cologne Junior Sharks) in the DNL (the major/top-level junior league in Germany) became champions in 2006-07, however it is unknown if he won any personal honors for this. I have researched the league, team and local newspapers' (KStA, Rundschau) websites (in German) but the news articles on this event does not mention any individual awards. Thus fails WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE for preeminent honors in a major junior league. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Yang (writer)[edit]

Peter Yang (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Unfortunately very common name, but I couldn't readily find Gnews hits for this Peter Yang, and the article has been tagged since 2007 without any references being added. THF (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It seems it was AfD'ed before under a different name? See [59] §FreeRangeFrog 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but perhaps created by a different editor. THF (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no reason to keep this article because (like the nomination says), it doesn't meet WP:Author or WP:Bio. Sufficient time has been given to prove notoriety in my opinion and I think it's time for it to be deleted. OlYellerTalktome 08:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypofixx[edit]

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

Contested 2x prod. Page was created in 2005. Editor who removed the prod did so claiming that artist is notable for having a page on the MTV website. Does this constitute a valid claim for #11 or #12 of the WP:MUSIC points? §FreeRangeFrog 01:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Videos were in rotation on Canadian channel MuchMusic at one point. I believe that satisfies #11.Sovex (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a verifiable source for that? JamesBurns (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.thegauntlet.com/bio/446/Hypofixx.html - "With his video in rotation on MuchMusic's Uranium, OvenFresh Keepers and Loud, HypoFixx was catapulted into an international spotlight and introduced as a new leader in industrial music." - That was just from a quick google search. Do you need more than that? Sovex (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the fact that their album is on Amazon released through The Orchard is. Why not add that to the article in the first place? §FreeRangeFrog 21:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I think the requirements for notability are covered. Thanks, internet! Sovex (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. The guidelines state that the artist must release two albums on a notable label. I can't find information on any of the others. Can you provide it? §FreeRangeFrog 22:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines at WP:Music state "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any ONE of the following criteria:" We've already discussed that this band meets several of these points. Am I missing something? Sovex (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this to AfD to test whether or not the claim about having the video played meets #11 specifically (not so much #12). I was pretty sure it wouldn't be able to pass #5. §FreeRangeFrog 18:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it does meet #11, but doesn't meet #5 or #12. So as long as the guidelines say that the band is notable if it meets ONE of the guidelines, then where is the problem? I don't see anything about meeting "All" or "Several" of the points, just "One". Sovex (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it met #11, I said I brought it to AfD to test whether or not it did, because I didn't think it met any of the others, especially #5. §FreeRangeFrog 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, I've proven notability WITHIN THE GUIDELINES GIVEN. If that's not good enough, then I don't know what else I'm supposed to do. You're the decider, so decide away. Sovex (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is a consensus, so we'll wait and see if one develops. §FreeRangeFrog
Alright. I've added my vote below. Sovex (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus, I will gladly close the AfD. §FreeRangeFrog 02:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notable body of work does not appear to be there. --Stormbay (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability proven within WP:Music Guidelines, as outlined above. Sovex (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reference above claiming rotation on MuchMusic is not a reliable source. It's not an article—it's a band bio on a music website that appears to be take from a press release. Without verifiable references from a reliable source regarding the MuchMusic claim, this artist does not meet any of WP:MUSIC. 173.48.82.191 (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, to address a comment above, digital distribution is not one of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. 173.48.82.191 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —173.48.82.191 (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hypofixx's notability within WP:Music Guidelines is demonstrated by Billboard.com link that I have added to the main article. Esasus (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That Billboard link is merely a mirror of the All Music Guide. It shows he released one album and one single (neither of which charted), and in no way indicates notability. 173.48.82.191 (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Peterson (playwright)[edit]

James Peterson (playwright) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot find evidence that the subject passes WP:BIO & specifically WP:CREATIVE. His oeuvre consists of a single self-published one-act play which does not appear to be a "significant or well known work", indeed, outside primary sources I am having difficulty finding anything about it at all. Nancy talk 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no coverage about him in reliable sources. Also, this current version of the article is a copyvio from [60]. If this does get kept, it needs to be reverted back to an earlier versiont hat was not a copy of the playwright's bio on his web site. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons listed by Whpq. OlYellerTalktome 12:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. I can find very little about him, no references that are reliable third party. Artypants, Babble 17:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodillos[edit]

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

Popular restaurant in Santa Ponsa, Spain. No significant and independent coverage. Wronkiew (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The only reliable source I found is this one: [61] (the restaurant is also mentioned on the guide's introductory page for Mallorcan dining, emphasising that they consider it important: [62]), but that is not enough to establish notability. If other sources turn up, consider this a keep. JulesH (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (for now). I am in the same position as JulesH. Perhaps someone who speaks Dutch could help see if there are any sources to be had in that language, since the owners are Dutch. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  08:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While WP:RS is somewhat vague on where the line is drawn on what a reliable source is, I believe the Travel Channel to be a reliable source. TC is notable and a third party. While it may be considered weak, it has obtained notoriety from a reliable source. In my opinion, it should be kept. OlYellerTalktome 12:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree the Travel Channel is a reliable source, but JulesH's source is a destination guide. If TC had featured the restaurant on one of its segments or otherwise reported on it, I'd call it a keeper. But this is just a destination guide and as such I don't think the bar for being included in the list of restaurants is very high-- on the contrary, I think destination guides try to be have more inclusive listings of restaurants. Perhaps this can contribute towards notability, but by itself, I don't think it's enough to establish notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should have actually checked the TC link. I'm changing my vote and noting a lesson learned. :-) OlYellerTalktome 18:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Peace[edit]

The Power of Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. No evidence that this has actually gone into production, and therefore it would fail the future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can adequately demonstrate that production has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find no coverage about this film. The article spcifies some dates and festivals where announcements were to take place, but if they did, they weren't covered by any sources that cpuld be found through googling. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bray[edit]

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

Doesn't meet biography notability. By the note here User_talk:DoctorHugh0 and the history it appears that he recreated this article the day he was notified of it's deletion. Habanero-tan (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reference is his own website! It does not meet the guide lines in anyway. Artypants, Babble 17:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Add a {{unreferenced}}, wait a month and see what happens. The article claims notability but simply doesn't provide reliable sources under WP:RS. The creators/editors may have them but just need a week or two to post them.OlYellerTalktome 12:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 0 relevant Google News ghits. All awards (even if substantiated) aren't equal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Frozen Show[edit]

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

I have attempted to clean the article up, but i suggest deletion as this is not encyclopedic knowledge, yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.36.214 (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. Article is about a podcast, with no reliable sources provided and none found. Podcast seems to be new-ish, with only a handful of episodes (which in itself is not a reason for deletion). Any claims of notability are related to other events (record low temperatures) or entities (Canadian Light Source). TNXMan 22:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable podcast with no WP:RS sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - podcasts are inherently non-notable. This has no citations from reliable sources to indicate otherwise. B.Wind (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Stone (porn star)[edit]

Brad Stone (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:PORNBIO -- 1. No award/nomination notability -- 2. No notable unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre -- 3. No mainstream (non-porn) media notability. Could not find any awards for actor via google search. Outsider80 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Steiner[edit]

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

This is a biography of one of the top author's at StoriesOnline, a site not notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article on it (apparenttly) and just barely in the top 15,000 most popular websites. While this article apparently established that Steiner is rather popular on that site, this really doesn't translate to Wikipedia notability, especially as there are no reliable sources about this guy, and none exist on Google News Archive, as far as I can tell. He doesn't meet WP:BIO or any other inclusion guideline. I get that people on the website like him, but there's been no coverage of him outside that website, and maybe on very closely related websites. Movingday29 (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I don't see any outside coverage either. Nothing on Google News, which suggests that outside of the website there is not much interest in providing in-depth, third-party coverage. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO, nothing particualrly notable or independant covereage of him. --Ged UK (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This article makes a better case for notability than those considered at previous AfD's but notability still is questionable at best. I think that Ged UK's comments probably are right on point. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Torres[edit]

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

WP:BIO. No RS references in article. Notability tag since September 2007. Played backup for Bill Haley a decade or so after Haley was a big hit. Currently an Adventist pastor with a website, but nothing on the website demonstrating notability. THF (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was Bill Haley backup, but left before the tour, so fails WP:band. Every other claim is either unsourced or sourced only by non RS sources, so fails WP:BIO. --Ged UK (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Meyer[edit]

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

Not PRODding because one of the re-directs had the PROD removed so I'm willing to treat this as possibly controversial and therefore not A7ing. She's held a number of n-n consulting positions, been a committee member and is "known" (5 ghits) as the Board Chair for a n-n org (deleted via PROD) and her predecessor was A7ed. Created by a promotional SPA. No evidence she's notable at all. StarM 03:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable third party sources establishing notability. Scarykitty (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As themfromspace says, Quack... --Ged UK (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peter Ward (paleontologist). Weighing the deletion and redirect comments against the keep comments, there is a rough consensus to not retain the article, a merge appears to be the option with the greatest implicit support. MBisanz talk 01:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medea Hypothesis[edit]

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

This is not a notable theory. In fact, there were so few ghits, except to the Amazon listing for Peter Ward's book. There is absolutely no support for this theory. I think mentioning this theory in Peter Ward is quite sufficient. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The support or lack of for the theory is irrelevant (that would be to judge content). The press coverage makes it notable. That and 390239 google hits. --Michael C. Price talk 01:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make that 599039 ghits -- notability seems to be increasing rapidly. --Michael C. Price talk 11:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better sources are found. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL In google books and google scholar the only two hits are both from Peter Ward's book. So, it appears to have had no coverage, repercusion, citing or reviewing from journals covered by google. Looking at the reviews from the book's princeton website[63], I can only see reviews from individuals, apart from the Boston Globe review. Merge to Peter Ward (paleontologist) and redirect LOL, it's going to be released on May 2009, three months from now, no wonder no one has reviewed it yet XD . Too soon to have its own article, merge it into Peter Ward (paleontologist), wait and re-create when/if it becomes notable --Enric Naval (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's already a popular author, so I don't think we're really jumping the gun here -- especially considering the importance of the Gaia hypothesis (irrespective of whether we agree with it).--Michael C. Price talk 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has like 12 books and we only have articles on two of them (counting this one). I'd say that there is a good chance that this one won't make the cut. Let's merge for now, and I wish luck to Peter on his book becoming very notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Fails WP:BK, as the book has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. The boston.com article is the only article that currently satisfies this criteria. However, this one source contains sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary, and it's likely that more non-trivial sources will appear after publication. -Atmoz (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - To Peter Ward, with no prejudice to the article being expanded once this becomes more tangible. §FreeRangeFrog 19:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Peter Ward (paleontologist). Verbal chat 20:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This theory is not unique to Ward hence it does not make sense to merge it into his article. For example, here is a lecture by Hawking presenting the same theory: [64] Canon (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hawking's theory has nothing to do with the theory of Gaia killing all multi-cellular life via the evolution mechanism. It's about intelligent life killing itself once it reaches a certain level, the non-intelligent multi-cellular life survives, unlike the Medea hypothesis: "A third possibility is that there is a reasonable probability for life to form and to evolve to intelligent beings in the external transmission phase. But at that point the system becomes unstable and the intelligent life destroys itself." --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea that evolution can lead to extinction has a long history going back at least to Haldane. It is a notable theory and has been investigated by several researches, cf. [65]. It was not invented by Ward and is notable. Canon (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be Evolutionary suicide, where certain species or populations will drive themselves to extintion via evolution, but not at a global scale, and only affecting one species. Probably a related mechanism, but it still has nothing to do with Gaia being a bad mother and killing all her multi-cellular children, and Peter is applying it to the Gaia superorganism and not to populations of one specie. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • One school of thought holds that intelligent life will kill all life on Earth via ecological disaster and another school holds that individual species can drive themselves to extinction by consuming all resources in their ecological niche. Put these together and you have this hypothesis. Certainly a notable idea and deriving from mainstream scientific theories. Of course it may be wrong, but that's not the issue as far as article deletion is concerned. Canon (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are discussing if that idea is notable, it's not enough that it derives from notable ideas, it has to be notable by itself. Just provide sources showing that that idea is notable, . --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Also note that Hawking once predicted that the universe would eventually stop expanding and start collapsing when time would move backward, broken glasses woould repair themselves as the moment of their breaking was recrossed, etc. He later retracted this backward-time theory. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What have Hawking's failings as a physicist to do with the notability of extinction theories? --Michael C. Price talk 07:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the article on Peter Ward unless and until it gets published and reviewed by reliable secondary sources. Right now it's vague advance hype with no reliable sources covering the topic. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 whether or not to merge can be discussed at a more appropriate venue. (NAC) RMHED. 21:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Tucker (Family Guy)[edit]

Tom Tucker (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Delete It's mostly a summary of old episode plots so I say delete.George Pelltier (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • malformed afd nom, completed by Hiding T 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tihnk there are enough sources.[66] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a TV episode writer, I'm going to have to disagree. Search results can be deceiving. Often, I find dozens of sources, of which I can only use a handful. First page of results indicates mention in passing, or as a list of characters, and as it's sorted by relevance... it's not going to get better on page 2. Sceptre (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a heavily trimmed version back into the character list. A paragraph giving a quick overview is appropriate; this long, unsourced bit of trivia and plot summary is not. Reyk YO! 03:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and then consider whether to Merge, into a suitable article or list of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. I'd certainly say he's not appropriate for a full article, but this isnt the place. DGG (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you'd "certainly say he's not appropriate for a full article", this Keep vote would seem to be a bit WP:POINTed. I understand that as an Admin you do not need to be told this—is your intention to break the AfD process so that articles like this are not taken to AfD? I'm sorry that I find it hard to come up with good-faith explanations for this vote. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted this way because i follow WP:Deletion policy, that deletion is a last resort.. AfD is a discussion about whether articles should be deleted, not whether they should be merged. Articles should not even be brought here if merge is a reasonable solution. If we're going to discuss all merges here, the system will collapse under the weight. Satisfied about my good faith? DGG (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still have a problem with this, and if we don't come to a quick agreement within this thread, I think it is sufficiently disruptive to RfC on (provided I find the time to gather diffs and so forth).
Normally when an article about TV show element (such at this article) is proposed for Merge, the staunch defenders of crufty crap (typically a coalition of that article's editors with WP:OWN issues, and Wikipedia's organized inclusion partisans) start WP:BLUDGEONing the process with little regard to policy or consensus outside their own issue. Some have even taken to calling Merges a form of deletion: the so-called soft delete, reasonable named because of the high percentage of text that needs to be discarded from crufty crap articles in such merges. In previous disussions, both within article AfD pages and at WP:AN/I (something for which I need to gather diffs), I've heard that since Wikipedia:Proposed mergers seldom attracts much comment, AfD is not a bad place to discuss proposed Merges when such objections are likely.
Now you're saying Keep for the sole reason that you object to this venue. This is breaking this AfD procedure to prove a point outside this AfD discussion, thus WP:POINT. If this came from certain editors (oh, Pixelface for example), it wouldn't be worth a mention. But an Admin is doing this. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the WP:POINT issue here. It's true that AfD is not supposed to be for article improvement/merges and it's also true that that often happens nonetheless. I'll be frank--I see a WP:POINT problem in what you said but I only see a bit of pedantry in what DGG said. A Merge/Redirect is a form of Keep. That having been said, it is true that attempts to actually perform a merge are sometimes stifled by an article's defenders, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. JJL (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: deletion argument could theoretically apply to any article regarding series/episode-based fiction. It's weak because this article could easily be brought up to standards with a few hours of work. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sez who? This AfD is 5 days old, and has been templated for {{Rescue}} for 4. The article itself is over 2 years old, and has been edited by dozens of experienced editors. If this article "could easily be brought up to standards with a few hours of work", it would have happened by now. As for the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argment, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; and yes, many existing TV-based articles should be deleted or merged. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible merge - As with Herbert (Family Guy), I think this could be tossed into a list. Eric Wester (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of characters in Family Guy. No need for a character spinout article without significant real-world information. – sgeureka t•c 20:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peregrine Fisher and Bahamut0013. Ikip (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, noticeable character, he seems to be in all episodes. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he is a recurring character and he is notable enough.Smallman12q (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also afd nom for

Herbert (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Redirect to List of characters from Family Guy#Channel 5 (WQHG). Not every character on every TV show deserves a freestanding article -- and this one isn't even mentioned in the main article for that show. This article is entirely WP:PLOT (if that policy hasn't been deleted yet), and no case made for notability (nor is one likely). A Delete would also be fine since the parenthetical makes this an unlikely search term. If anyone wants to preserve this effort, there is probably a fan wiki to which this plotcruft could be exported. edg ☺ ☭ 08:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or smerge to the list of characters for FG. There is no evidence that this character is covered in significant detail by reliable sources independent from the subject. A web search is not promising. 30,100 hits, but most from the first 3-5 pages seem to be quote farms or non-RS coverage. The text string shows up in google books, but coverage of the character appears absent from even the "official episode guide" of Family Guy (which wouldn't count as independent, but it would be better than nothing). Lulz. there is a scholar hit. But it is from a student paper that got indexed in scholar. Protonk (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mariah-Yulia. — Jake Wartenberg 13:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to List_of_characters_in_Family_Guy#Other_characters. Page redirected to entry that already exists - anything else usable can be merged. Black Kite 08:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert (Family Guy)[edit]

Herbert (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete This isn't at all encyclopedic. Not to mention there are no references. Essentially this is just another article created by fans.George Pelltier (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • malformed afd nom, completed by Hiding T 00:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a character list Sceptre (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no usable content here, and Herbert is already covered in enough detail in the character list. Reyk YO! 03:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, into a suitable article of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. I'd certainly say he's not appropriate for a full article, but this isnt the place to discuss it./ DGG (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Doesn't warrant his own page and should be merged into the character list. OlYellerTalktome 10:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - article rarely consists of anything except OR and fancruft. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I like the idea of merging it into a character list. Eric Wester (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of characters in Family Guy. No need for a character spinout article without significant real-world information. – sgeureka t•c 20:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not merge, While merging may seem appropriate, Herbert may be notable enough to deserve his own page. Perhaps the character list could contain an abbreviated section with a main link to here. Herbert is a reacurring character and this article currently appears as the #1 link on google for a family guy herbert search. This article simply needs a few references, not an afd. I don't believe the reason for this nomiation is valid. There are numerous other family guy articles such as Cleveland_Brown and they have not been deleted.Smallman12q (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also afd nom for

Tom Tucker (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by same nominator.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim KC Canton[edit]

Tim KC Canton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probably not notable; only claim to significance is the website he started, and even the company he sold that website to doesn't have an article. User name (User:Kccanton) also indicates conflict of interest. Dcoetzee 07:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Gnews search didn't turn up any relevant hits (there are other Tim Cantons). Fails WP:V, and WP:BIO; claim to founding of website is not verifiable, not that it would be sufficient for notability in any case w/o further sourcing as to the website's notability. Ray (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO --Ged UK (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above mentioned reasons. Eric Wester (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_19&oldid=1142645098"