Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 26

< 25 February	27 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Kepper[edit]

Unreferenced BLP. Does not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The American Standards, unless he's actually notable for other films/events as well. --Sigma 7 (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comprehensive news search generates no significant coverage. No reviews in reliable sources of the films he's been in, and even the non-RS reviews mention neither him nor his characters. Not even a close call. Bongo matic 02:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no coverage about this actor in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn bio; could probably have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott maierhofer[edit]

No sources, orphaned, and non-notable person. Mononomic (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. A quick Google search confirms that he exists, and not much more. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage limited to press releases, passing quotations, and a couple of notations that he left a previous position. No actual coverage about the individual. Bongo matic 02:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All Google News coverage is trivial mentions. THF (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ManhattanGMAT[edit]

Extensive news searches have found no significant coverage of this organization. Articles on the topic have been speedied numerous times before but in order to prevent that going forward (at least for a while), an AfD would be useful. Bongo matic 23:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional piece; fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog 01:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. Lacks 3rd party independent coverage where this company is the subject (and not merely mentioned in some larger context). Small Business award is interesting but does't establish notability in the absense of sufficient coverage.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been extensive and noteworthy media coverage of ManhattanGMAT in relation to the company's founder, Zeke Vanderhoek. Also, the About.com article is third party and was not a piece initiated by the company. This article is as unbiased and noteworthy as the articles on Knewton, Princeton Review, and Kaplan.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrp3d (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC) — Jrp3d (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - minimal outside citations, and reference to growth numbers is unverified and appears self-promotional. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Comments by obvious single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets were disregarded. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L.C. Von Sukmeister[edit]

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

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

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

This was speedy deleted before as a hoax. Everything about this article is suspect, not least of which, it's confirmed in the article that this is a pseudonym of a PhD candidate of questionable notability. If "R.S. de Boer" is notable himself, then an article should be created about him with perhaps some information about this character if sourced. But as it stands, this is unencyclopedic. freshacconci talktalk 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion by someone with no sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brave new reactionary media world is the canvas of choice for L.C. Von Sukmeister. As one who has been involved in television arts since the mid 1970's in California, I have found his work to speak on a note of realism, while also reinterpreting a captured moment. And that is the trick for all of us who dabble in the digital realm. Where do we draw the line of documenting or delineating our own interpretation of our present time. L.C. Sukmeister does exactly that. He balances on that fine edge and that in fact is an art form. It is an evolving art form not just in our present time--but in REAL TIME.

Ruben Avila, Visual Artist, Sceneologist and Documentarian of the arts and culture of the South Texas/Mexico Border Region Cited works may be seen at YouTube.com/VisualArtsNetwork — Preceding unsigned comment added by RubenAvilaMedia (talk • contribs) — RubenAvilaMedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I guess we can take that as a "keep"? freshacconci talktalk 03:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relevant comment by ruben avila, one should indeed keep the page, because L.C. in my opinion, signifies new approaches in new media art.WheelieVD (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC) — WheelieVD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Possible conflict of interest and abuse of sockpuppets. This article was originally crated by user:Lcvonsukmeister, which user name is the same as the article title. It was recreated by user:Rsdeboer, which user name is again directly related to the subject of this article. Definitely both users are the same person, but not abuse so far. Suddenly at this afd discussion appears two new editors user:RubenAvilaMedia and user:WheelieVD – both having only on edit in the Wikipedia at this afd page and both arguing for keeping this article. Seem like abuse of the policies for me. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: thank you very much for all the comments, it's now all been recorded and documented for a conceptual artwork that shows the steps of an artist who becomes accepted/or not into the world of internet and especially wikipedia. i often wondered what kind of knowledge about contemporary art these wiki users actually have. it seems that wiki isn't the democratic free place it assumes to be, since it's not recognizing evolving avant-garde movements. in a way i understand its policy to only accept articles which somewhere are created by people who already wrote articles about pencils or car windows, but i don't think most of these people -although they know a lot about the policies and rules that comes with wiki- are suitable to write on art because of their sheer ignorance of the developments of for example new art media. while working as a phd candidate, check my homepage of the VU University Amsterdam (The Netherlands), i also work as a para-performative artist-historian, that means alongside my writings on art i also work as an artist myself. thus, in this role as artist i try to find and break the boundaries between the highbrow and lowbrow arts and the different gatekeeping mechanisms and use subversive techniques to reveal how these mechanisms work. this artwork could be considered as institutional critique, not so much on the institution of the museum and the gallery (since this artwork had already appeared in the performance of writing on wiki and this documented residue isn't for sale), but rather on the institution of wiki as public space where people meet who have different degrees of understanding the arts (which is notable in some of the comments of people who actually don't have art degrees whatsoever but are only on wiki because they have knowledge on the policies and rules that come with it and for a part that's good but also is obstructive to the supposedly real democratization of this medium). a solution could be to start a special kind of wiki-inspired page only written by artists and art historians, but anyhow, i think this was a nice case of exploring gatekeeping mechanisms of an assumedly free public space. thank you all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsdeboer (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's been done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art. freshacconci talktalk 16:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and could be a hoax. Also, regarding above comment, User:Rsdeboer may be a sock puppet of User:Lcvonsukmeister. I take it that is a style of Art? Sorry but Wikipedia is not a Democracy as such, but it does have rules. Artypants, ^Babble 16:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yeah sure, as the artist L.C. von Sukmeister i make up this webpage of a university to host the name of R.S. de Boer?? hahaha I AM R.S. de Boer and R.S. de Boer = L.C. von Sukmeister, they both exist. R.S. de Boer a little bit more and you can find me on the VU University, if you don't believe that... i don't know how you can think of me as a sock puppet.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsdeboer (talk • contribs)
Strong delete - self-advertisement by obvious C.O.I. sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts seeking to make the subject notable via Wikipedia, either due to a complete misunderstanding of our ethos, or possibly a full understanding of our ethos and a defiant wish to violate it, a/k/a WP:POINT. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning towards the latter. freshacconci talktalk 14:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The original close by Yandman (see below) was overturned by the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_3.--Aervanath (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to AACS encryption key controversy. I know AfD closures that do not follow head count are often controversial, but I see no clear refutation of the nominator's arguments for deletion. CS has received flak for providing a long deletion rationale, and several editors have provided this as their only argument. The fact that someone takes the time to be clear, precise and pre-empt several possible arguments against deletion is hardly something to be criticised. In the same vein, the fact that the topic is interesting does not make the article worthy of inclusion. I think redirect is preferable to deletion, because it's a plausible search term, and in this way if there is any content of use here, it can be merged into other articles. If you feel I've chosen the wrong target for redirection, feel free to modify it (DeCSS? DMCA?). yandman 15:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal number[edit]

There was something of a small frenzy among some geeky circles the first time this article was nominated for deletion. But the problems remain, and as far as I can tell, I successfully refuted every single argument for keeping the article on the talk page. Let me summarize my talk page comments as best I can. I apologize for the length, but I think it necessary because of the huge amount of confusion over the topic which has obfuscated the policy arguments. For convenience, I have divided it up into several sections.

Original research and bad sourcing :The key policy here is original research. The definition of an illegal number is "An illegal number is a number that represents information which is illegal to possess, utter or propagate." This sounds like a neat idea for a discussion over coffee or tea. But how do we know it isn't something made up in school one day? Ah, because of the three sources given! We have some brief comments in the prime glossary and a Register article, and some speculation on Phil Carmobdy's website [1]. Do these satisfy the Wikipedia policies on original research and reliable sources. I think not. These are not very good sources.

Misrepresentation of source material: The Register article was inspired by the AACS legal notice, which makes up a good chunk of the illegal number article. But the notice does not say what the current version of the article says, do they claim to own a number. The quote from the letter in the footnote, is "Illegal Offering of Processing Key to Circumvent AACS Copyright Protection [...] are thereby providing and offering to the public a technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed, produced, or marketed for the purpose of circumventing the technological protection measures afforded by AACS (hereafter, the "circumvention offering"). Doing so constitutes a violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA")”. (My emphasis)

It says that distributing "technology, product, etc." for "the purpose of circumventing the..." is illegal. In other words, if you distribute this key for a specific purpose of circumventing the AACS technology, that is illegal.

In the AFD, somebody commented, "The number itself is not illegal, but exposing certain types of information is. To use an example, Scooter Libby was not convicted because Valerie Plame's name was illegal, but because he exposed information connecting her to the CIA. In the same way, the number isn't itself illegal (after all, it would be useless without knowledge of its purpose), but the exposed key to DRM software or some other secret information."

Or to make the example even simpler, your street address is not illegal for me to possess, but on Wikipedia at least, it can be a banning offense for me to reveal your address, as it is a secret (presumably, assume so for the sake of argument) that you live there. The consequences are more dire, depending on my apparent intent for revealing such information. The law makes all kinds of distinction about intent and purpose for lots of crimes. Why is it so hard for people to understand that distributing particular information with a particular intent may be illegal even if that information is not illegal to possess? Now of course, some people are affronted that such things can be illegal. But the point isn't that some number is illegal; it's that a particular secret is protected, and revealing that secret is in fact, under the DMCA, illegal. This is nothing new.

It's clear (to me at least) that the speculation around this issue is extremely misguided. There is a real issue: should revealing secrets designed to stop people from circumventing copyright protection be illegal? But it has little to do with people "owning" numbers. You can bet if there really was such a claim of ownership the EFF would have made a stink about it. But the only stink they've raised is about the real issue, as I've explained.

Lack of sourcing and media coverage: Is this speculation about illegal number notable? I don't think so. If it were (almost by definition), there would be a number of sources like well-respected newspapers and such reporting on this speculation. So far, they have chosen to avoid commenting.

Digression -- is patentability of numbers relevant?: In closing, let me comment on the patentability of numbers. This has been raised as a red herring in discussion, because someone believed that regardless of the merits of claims of patenting numbers, there was enough media coverage of "patenting a number" that it satisfied policy.

It's not relevant either that speculation or ideas of patenting numbers can be much better sourced than the so-called "illegal numbers". If you look at the [source we discussed on talk page], it is perfectly ok to write a book on what number was patented. The reason is that the number is not secret. You are free to go look at the patent application online, and then go tell people, in public forums if you wish, about the information contained in it. This seems entirely different than what this article is purporting to be about, speculation about numbers being illegal because they represent secret information. In other words, we have two different topics here, so whether one can be reliably sourced is irrelevant to whether the other one is. Unless you want to change the article to say that "an illegal number is a number that that under some interpretations and under some legislation represents information which is illegal to possess, utter or propagate, under other interpretations it represents a patented number, which is not illegal to possess, utter or propagate." But that doesn't make any sense, does it? --C S (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There is clearly a notable topic here - I had no difficulty finding additional sources in journals such as New Statesman and Information Week. There may well be some issues of scope for the article but these should be settled elsewhere. The length of the nomination and the reference to the article's talk page indicates that this is forum shopping. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Perhaps you could list some of these numerous articles, and the best ones to make your case. I did find a brief article by Becky Hogge in the New Statesmen about the AACS incident. It hardly supports the definition of illegal number. It not only doesn't define illegal number (although it says the number in question is such an example), I don't think it justifies this article's existence. No doubt, the AACS incident may be worth an article (or perhaps a section in a lengthier article about the DMCA). But most of the illegal number article is clearly OR. Perhaps Colonel Warden could help out here by stripping all poorly sourced material, or material not supported by the sources he found, such as the given OR definition of illegal number. I'm afraid were I to do so, someone may accuse me of stuff [incidentally, since I seem to be accused of stuff here, I should point out I spent very little time on the 1st AFD, and while I did engage for a few days on the talk page some time ago (maybe 2 years?), today was I reminded of it, and then I saw it was still there. Given that all the arguments on the talk page seem to have been refuted, I thought there would be no problem with a nomination. If the Colonel is correct and I have violated some behavioral guideline here, I would be happy to withdraw my nefarious nomination.] --C S (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you agree that the AACS incident merits an article. This appears to be that article. It may well be imperfect but that's not a reason to delete. Please see WP:BEFORE which explains that alternatives to deletion should be explored before coming here. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be nothing like that article. It's filled to the brim with OR. --C S (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, I find that the matter is covered better at AACS encryption key controversy. A merge proposal would be a more sensible process than this. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what is there to merge? The OR theory on illegal numbers? The wrong factual statements about what the AACS controversy was about? At best, what we could do is just kill everything and redirect the article. But that may lead people to think that there actually is a notable topic of "illegal number".

Incidentally, you haven't responded to my comments about lack of sourcing, despite claiming their prevalence. Perhaps that was due to your initial misconception about the scope of this article. --C S (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This is certainly a notable subject and it is referenced. The AACS encryption key controversy is only one example of this.Smallman12q (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1: I would like to point out that this is by far one of the longest nomination rationales I have seen and as Gandalf61 says below, if the rationale behind the AFD requires so much explaining, than perhaps its not a very solid reason.Smallman12q (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd like to hear some, if there are any - it might sway my vote. Artw (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination is WP:TLDR. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons others mentioned. Dream Focus 04:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those who haven't read the nomination: the nominator's suggestion (essentially) is that the subject of this article is a legal theory concocted by people with no formal legal training and published in sources that aren't reliable sources for legal issues (e.g., The Register, which is a reliable source on IT-related issues, e.g. product announcements, stuff like that, but shouldn't be considered a reliable source for this kind of legal speculation). There is therefore no evidence that it has any legal validity. JulesH (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A rather bizarre theory, not backed up by any actual legal evidence, but reported in enough different places to establish notability (IMO) as an important part of crypto-geek-legal folklore. That said, there is a significant chunk of OR going down here, and he article has NPOV issues (reporting the numbers as illegal despite the fact that no source that would be reliable for that assertion has made it) that need fixing. I think it can be fixed, but it needs serious work. JulesH (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your comments except the "reported in enough different places". We need to have good reporting, especially if we want to make that the basis of an article which has no basis in reality. At least we should ensure that the speculation is notable enough. Where is this notable speculation? Slashdot? Blogs? The Register? The best source anyone has found is [2]. Frankly, articles written that sloppily don't engender much confidence (and it's written vaguely enough that it's hard to pin down if the journalist is really thinking that the AACS notice is claiming the number itself is illegal). I guess my perspective on this is rather simple: why is this speculation not mentioned in periodicals like the New York Times but picked up in rather short "sci/tech" segments in the New Statesmen? Is it because newspapers like the former have a higher editorial standard for speculation with no apparent legal basis? If so, should we be including this into Wikipedia? --C S (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment how is this not just a WP:COATRACK for DeCSS related material? Are there good reasons for not mergering/redirecting? Artw (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The same could probably be said of Illegal prime. Artw (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself explains that any information can be expressed by a number, so an "illegal number" is simply a synonym of "illegal information". This is just a piece of original research by synthesis claiming that a few sensationalist reports from sources that cannot be considered reliable for legal matters mean that there is a concept of an "illegal number". By keeping this article we are simply perpetuating an urban myth as though it were fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I entirely agree with Phil's comments about this issue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article synthesizes a subject from sources that, with one exception, are not relevant. Redirection to DMCA is an option, regardless of whether the article is deleted. WillOakland (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable, well written, sourced. And if arguments for deletion are so complex that it takes an essay to explain them then they can't be very sound. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably keep votes that are so short they don't even bother to back up claims of being "notable" and (reliably) "sourced" aren't very sound either. My "essay" is due to the fact that some people seem to have blinders on and make claims of "notable" and "sourced" without attempting to back them up. In their minds, this is so obvious as to not warrant any further discussion. But I believe this is due to various misconceptions which I outlined. --C S (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As you might know, AFDs are not votes where you can win just by posting enough bold assertions of merit or "notability." Reasoning and evidence (at least in theory) count for something. WillOakland (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. Neither are AFDs a soapbox where rambling speeches and empty rhetoric can disguise the lack of a good argument. Conciseness is a virtue. Gandalf61 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I really hope to see the evidence soon for your claims. All I can rely on due to my lack of a good argument are rambling speeches and rhetoric about reliable sources and notability. --C S (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOR. The underlying issue of the encryption key has a separate article, but this article has no reliable sources. It may be possible that it is illegal for certain types of information to be published, such as a number together with the instructions for using it in an illegal manner, but that is a different idea than a number that is illegal in itself; and, if that idea were presented in an article it would require clear reliable sources in the field of law. This article is not that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:COATRACK for opinions on DeCSS and AACS encryption key controversy. Could possibly merged or redirected to one of those two. Artw (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with Gandalf61 above. The arguments for deletion are very complex. If it takes an essay to explain them then they can't be very sound. The article needs improvement for sure but there's no reason to delete it. Vexorg (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-referenced article that needs improvement rather than deletion. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Illegal prime It's definitely a notable topic, however perhaps it needs to be more restructured towards just alternative representations of illegal information. It seems to be deliberately ignoring the useful aspects, such as illegal primes, to avoid an overlap with that article, which makes this article not as useful or complete. Kaldosh (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And...this is the kind of confusion that necessitated my long nomination. Illegal prime is even worse than the illegal number article. That one relies on a single Register article, with all other sources being non-RS type blogs/webpages. There is no legal justification for considering the "illegal" primes to in fact be illegal, and neither was the speculation about such widespread enough to make it into more than one dubious piece of journalism in the Register. --C S (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Illegal prime is different from illegal number because not every illegal number is a prime. However, there is enough controversy around illegal primes alone(because of their unique mathematical properties) to warrant a separate article.Smallman12q (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's well-sourced. The arguments to delete do not convince me. If a "coatrack" is suspected, then a merge would be more appropriate in this case. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have finitely many sources (in fact, only four to discuss, one of which was found by an earlier commenter in the discussion). Only 3 are in the article, and the best one is the Register article, which, if you know anything about the Register, doesn't really engender much confidence, especially for any argument arguing that the topic has received notable media coverage. Please explain why this suffices to make this notable speculation or a legitimate topic. At the risk of beating a dead horse, merely stating something is well-sourced, when someone has pointed out the contrary, is hardly an argument.
- It'd be great if there were actually a discussion about these sources, but not a single person has joined in such a discussion nor explained why these particular sources show notability or why they satisfy WP:RS for this topic. --C S (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. What an interesting topic. The subject is encyclopedic. — Reinyday, 07:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as blatant hoax. Being charged with "one count of driving like a weird person" makes it kind of obvious. the wub "?!" 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell baer[edit]

Delete. I suspect this article to be a hoax. Most of the references cited do not actually speak of the subject in any way, and a Google search for "Mitchell baer" "Carol Schwartz" doesn't come up with anything that verifies claims in the article. Identically-named articles have been speedied several times. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, this smells like a hoax Lets drink Tea 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:03, 26 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2010[edit]

I'm not saying this article should necessarily be deleted, but I would like a debate on the issue. I find the article speculative (possible violation of WP:BALL) and poorly sourced. I quote: "The FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2010 may take place..." at an unspecified location. Nor do I find anything in the reference that indicated that a championship will actually be held in 2010. Badmotorfinger (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FIS Nordic World Ski Championships are held only in odd-numbered years, so there will be no such competition in 2010. This article seems to have been created in the belief that a special women's ski jumping championship will be held next year because the event was not accepted for the 2010 Winter Olympics; but in a hasty search I wasn't able to confirm that, and even if it's so, I doubt that Nordic World Ski Championships would be the name of the competition. (Women's ski jumping is, however, being contested at this year's championships.) For now, delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V; if any more specific information is forthcoming, I'll reconsider. Deor (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is historical precedence on holding events at the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships in Winter Olympic years with this having been done three time previously. The women's 20 km (now 30 km) was intoduced at the 1978, but not included in the 1980 Winter Olympics. This resulted in the FIS having a special 1980 championships for the event in Falun while the Lake Placid games were going on. This event would be in the next games in Sarajevo. At those same games, the nodic combined team event and the ski jumping team large hill events had separate championships of their own in Engelberg and Rovaniemi, respectively, but both were included in the next Winter games in Calgary. Every event held at the championships was included in the Winter Olympics with those. The fact that women's ski jumping was not included forced this issue. Whether they will have a 2010 World championship event for the nordic combined 10 km mass start with it not in the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver will not be known until the FIS releases the 2009-2010 schedule in May or June. Also, there is a chance that the women's ski jumping could be part of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi given the events success at the recent championships in Liberec. Chris (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources confirming that this competition will be held, and where and when it will be held? Without sources, there's nothing to put in the article. Deor (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women's ski jumping was a finalist event to be included in the 2010 Winter Olympics, but lost out to ski cross. The FIS should be able to state something on this in May or June when they release their schedule. No sourcing has been given so far on this yet. Chris (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The thought that this event may happen is not a reason for an article to exist. This is classic WP:CRYSTAL, and it's poorly sourced to boot. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FIS Nordic World Ski Championships until 2010 comes about. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The (sole) reference included in the article is completely irrelevant, has it says nothing about the event possibly taking part. Therefore, this is nothing but crystal ballery (my word). (However, if it is confirmed, then I have no problems with it being reintroduced.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FIS Nordic World Ski Championships, until any more information about the event is released. lil2mas (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since there will (if held) only be women's ski jumping this year, so the event will probably not be called by that name anyway, and is just confusing! lil2mas (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even if the event is cancelled, we have articles like the 1942 FIFA World Cup. J 1982 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I do realize that there is an article regarding the 1942 World Cup, but if the event is cancelled, there would be no need for this page. If there is an event, it can be treated as a demostration sport in the 2010 Winter Olympics.96.3.72.93 (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing verifiability. If it is actually announced with sourcing to provide some actual content to the article, then by all means create it then. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Notation. I'll leave this as a redirect, but the content will be available in the history for any material that needs merging Fritzpoll (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notation[edit]

Delete this has been unreferenced for over 2 years and has basically languished as something between a dictionary definition, a truism, and a point of view. This is not encyclopedic and is sufficiently general and not notable that English, French, Esperanto are all "standard notations" as are all the wiki definitions that we use here "nn", "cat", "redir", "afd" etc. Time to source this or retire it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:DICTIONARY. 16x9 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A pretty clear case of WP:NOTDIC, unlikely the article will amount to anything more. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Notation which seems to be a useful destination for someone wanting information on the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Notation per Colonel Warden's suggestion of a merge. I think that the text of the article "Standard notation refers to a general agreement in the way things are written or denoted. The term is generally used in technical and scientific areas of study like mathematics standard notation is factors written with exponents for example:1,2,3,5,6,10,15,30, physics, chemistry and biology, but can also be seen in areas like business, economics and music." is implied by the much better notation article. It's a logical search term. Mandsford (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Notation. It's a reasonable article on this topic; its title is simpler (thus more likely to be searched for and less likely to be mis-typed); it's got what should be in such an article. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki then Redirect or change to Disambiguation page: I agree that this is a common enough term to not be an encyclopedia entry, but the current two non-list mainspace articles linking here refer to musical standard notation, and the other page lists it as a mathematical term, so either redirect to Musical notation or leave as a disambiguation defaulting to Notation, with specifics for Maths, Chess, Dice, etc -- all from an internal Wikipedia search: [3] Mark Hurd (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Notation. I added some mathematical external links. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY. However, it appears that the article's creator may be involved with this organization. We should keep an eye on it. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People's Health Movement[edit]

Has notability issues for WP:ORG. Only references are to the org's website. The WHO reference is what they're working towards and not a reference to this org. Shadowjams (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abundant references in reliable sources. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2005/1329678.htm http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=125&art_id=vn20070909093053476C114959 http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36357 -- Eastmain (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly some references have been added to the article since its nomination for deletion, and I think those references establish the notability enough to satisfy WP:CORP. -- Atama ^chat 17:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of really good work done since my nom, which was done without the help of the recent edits. I'll hold off commenting beyond that until the afd's closed. Others should continue to comment. Shadowjams (talk) 04:51, 28 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 WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy Pants Adventures[edit]

Sources might not be reliable. ViperSnake151 21:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand on what sources seem unreliable? Me and a few guys have been working with Brad (the developer) to try and get this article up for a few weeks. Wai June Lau (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ViperSnake is referring to WP's reliable sources guideline. Someone another 13:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all the sources are particularly useful, but the Games Radar and Extreme Tech ones are fine (if very brief), but there are Jay is Games reviews for both worlds, two teeny pieces like this on IGN, it's on Kotaku and there's a review on about.com. The two Jay reviews and the about.com one are good sources and what you could call full reviews, the others can be used to get tidbits of reception from, there's more than enough there to establish notability and they're reliable IMO. Someone another 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't want to have a dig, there are numerous better ways of discussing sources than listing an article for deletion three minutes after it was created, the video game project is active and I could just as easily have pointed the above sources out there than here with a timer ticking. Someone another 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No attempt at resolving the problem appears to have been made, the focus is entirely on the article's current state instead of its potential, and no indication has been given that the article is irredeemable and must be dealt using the last resort instead of the tools available to ordinary editors. I request that someone who's better at it than me would respectfully explain to ViperSnake151 why AfD is generally useless for any outcome other than deletion, and why deletion is an extreme measure. After all, the informal slogan has been for years that "AfD is not cleanup." --Kiz o r 00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,Sources might not be reliable. is not a valid nomination reason.Smallman12q (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Someoneanother. The abovementioned sources easily establish notability for this game. Also, give the article a chance. MuZemike 07:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all above. AfD a whopping 3 minutes after article creation with such a flimsy reason("might not be reliable")? Come on. MLauba (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Fancy Pants Adventures has had very wide exposure for a casual or flash game, and shows up on near the top of quite a few "best of" lists. The Wikipedia:Deletion policy says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing." It goes on to suggest that the {{verify}} tag can be used if there is a question of verifiability. {{verify credibility}} can be used to question the reliability of particular sources. Either of these would have been more appropriate than AfD in this case. --Shunpiker (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since it's been stated that the article in question is being worked on with help directly from developers, wouldn't that make this article a candidate for speedy under WP:SPAM? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by fans of the games who are regulars on the dev's own forum, hence 'working with' - they talk about the game. The article has already been rendered more neutral and brought in line with what video game articles should contain, there doesn't seem any point in jettisoning it just because the creators aren't fully up-to-speed with the way WP works, who is when they first start? Someone another 13:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is WP:COI not Spam. Often the people closest to the subject are in the best position to contribute to the article, IMO. But in any case certainly not speedy. — brighterorange (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted, thanks all. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep spurious nomination of an article that's a good start and already meets the notability requirements. — brighterorange (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Fancy Pants Adventures is one of the most famous online games ever created. Brad Borne could sell it in the mass market if he wanted to. The sources are pretty reliable. Everything seems in check. I'm going to close this discussion. A bunch of people say keep, so why not? NintendoNerd777 (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as speedily deleted per WP:CSD G10-- negative unsourced BLP. Though the lack of WP:RS for an article such as this as it sits would qualify for speedy deletion, I also searched for WP:V via WP:RS on Google. Although there are Google hits for the subject's name, the particular details for this particular article could not be verified. There were hits for a non notable case involving a person with this name. The facts as reported do not concur with any version of this article. In light of the seriousness of events that are verifiable in another case, and the number of uninvolved people with this name, maintenance of human dignity, the potential for harm and disparagement problem require this be deleted, even assuming the the good faith of the creator. Dloh cierekim 00:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Martinez[edit]

Doesn't assert any real notability, no sources. Someone tried to afd it but didn't complete the process, and of course I'm the ONLY editor on the whole project who ever notices when a discussion is red linked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:HOAX, a search for "Andrea Martinez" ice cream tucson murder returns no meaningful information. I tagged it. §FreeRangeFrog 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meh, no content before and no content now due to a courtesy blanking, let's just get this clear speedy out of here. Also, the only editor? Of course you are, buddy. treelo _radda 00:00, 27 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. Consensus seems to be that this violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is too unmanageable for editing to be a practical solution. I am not salting the title, as the logs indicate that this is the only time an article has been at this title; there is no need for protection at this time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of musical quartets[edit]

There are noted examples of quartets, but this seems to be a bad case of an indiscriminate list. Certain quartets, such as barbershop and string, are indeed notable, but this list is quickly mushrooming into a list of every musical act that's ever had four members. What if they began as a quartet but were reduced? What if they began as a quintet but are now a quartet? Et cetera. We already have a list for the string quartets, which is fine since that one is much more clearly defined. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- 16x9 (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt the Wiki-earth beneath it. Textbook listcruft. There's no way this list could ever be properly maintained. Heck, "List of groups of eight people" is even cited as an example of listcruft - this is exactly the same thing, just with a smaller number. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a never ending list. It's too broad in scope. WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per above. Wikipedia is not a directory. The list violates WP:SALAT as being too broad for any managable article. Lists of (notable) string quartets, barbershop quartets, brass quartets, etc... would be valid articles but a list of musical quartets is too big to be wieldy. Themfromspace (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and pepper. Pepper spray. JBsupreme (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the nominator and others agree that lists of string quartets, barbershop quartets, etc are proper then this list can bring them together as a list of lists. Since this option does not seem to have been considered, deletion is premature. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator perfectly articulates just how ridiculous such a list this is. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit to address the concerns, which do not require article deletion. At the very least this can be refactored into a suitable list of lists as per Colonel Warden. Since the problems can be solved by editing, deletion policy is that we don't need to delete the article. DHowell (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad. Secret ^account 18:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 is not a "speedy" delete, as no criteria fits, however future recreations that are substantially similar can be speedied under G4 and the title possibly salted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cockfest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unencyclopedic, non-notable neologism with unreliable references. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Agree with nom, was preparing the AfD when this popped up. Dayewalker (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what criterion would this be speedied? Because the last deletion was not taken pursuant to a deletion discussion (the article was speedied while at AfD), G4 does not apply (it seems also that this version is non-trivially different from that that was deleted, but we needn't reach that issue, AFAICT), and I can't imagine that any other CSD should fit. Joe 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete "references" are self published. Is salting required?Vulture19 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would also like to add i've never heard it called a "cockfest" before, the more common term would be "sausagefest". TJ Spyke 20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is my first article on this wiki (I am familiar with wikis elsewhere) why are you wanting to delete it so much? I thought Wikipedia was not censored?--What Wat? (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia isn't censored, that's not the issue with this article. It's a question of notability and no reliable sources. Dayewalker (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedily, for lack of reliable sourcing for this neologism. I'd like to see a full discussion so it can be left alone or G4'ed in the future. The author's assertion of never being on Wikipedia before is likely untrue, given his intimate knowledge of process, unless he's been somewhere else which mimics our Speedy and Prod processes, but there's no clear evidence he's ban- or block-evading. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICTIONARY and WP:OR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16x9 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, my friend said this phrase. He also said "I love you" to me the other night, in a platonic way. This really touched me. Just made me think about how far I've come.--What Wat? (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not a dictionary among other things. --^StormRider 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pure dictionary material. What's the holdup? Peter ^Isotalo 09:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the above for my reasoning: It's been speedied already, so it really ought to be dealt with here, so it can be left alone or G4'ed in the future. Jclemens (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure of AfD withdrawn by nominator. §FreeRangeFrog 09:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoldWave[edit]

No real notability claims. No reliable sources to establish notability. Similar article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WavePad (2nd nomination) Dweller (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability beyond "it exists". As it stands this is nothing more than corporate advert. §FreeRangeFrog 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sources found to establish notability. And I went and added them to the article, wonder of wonders. §FreeRangeFrog 03:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google News search turns up 167 mentions, from specialist sites like PC World to the San Francisco Chronicle and The New York Times. Many describe it as one of the leading audio editing programs. the wub "?!" 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable software. Google News articles are mostly download sites or off handed mention of the product not articles about the software. 16x9 (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is among the leading sound editing programs. It is a fairly popular low cost sound editing program maker. They are mentioned in http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5398560.stm and http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4225856.html .Smallman12q (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It also scores reviews or mentions at reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-5020879-1.html and audio-editing-software-review.toptenreviews.com/goldwave-digital-audio-editor-review.html . FWIW it is also occasionally recommended by professional engineers at eng-tips.com. If it is mentioned by the beeb and NYT (etc) I'm inclined to say that wp:rs is satisfied.Greglocock (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. Nomination withdrawn. Good work, all. --Dweller (talk) 08:08, 27 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. Arguments for retention seem to focus on the existence of other articles, and I should note that BLP1E is a policy, not a guideline. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punniyamurthy Sathyamurthy[edit]

BLP1E, notable only for manner of death. Prod contested by article creator with the statememnt that he "thought the person was notable," which is a bit of a given. I gave the article the benefit of the doubt, but no one (including the creator), has added to the article since it was deprodded. In this case, BLP1E is particularly obvious because every article about him is posthumously written and says "he was killed in an air raid." Additionally, his WP article is GHit #1 of only 530 results. MSJapan (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as you say, the article has been given the chance to have WP:BIO established, but as it stands, this seems to have failed (he might have been a notable journalist before jis death). An alternative would be to redirect to an article about the raids or the killings of journalist in Sri Lanka (if such articles exist, of course). -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are series of articles and even Cat for journalists and Media Workers killed during war.Here is a list of some those killed in Iraq. [4]I would not agree that is strictly [[WP:BLE1]which is a guideline rather than a rule.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Upon taking a look at the stated link, the list (which is in fact a template at the bottom of the page, and neither a list nor an article) has over half its entries redlinked. I think that would in fact support deletion, because none of the blue links are such because of the individual's death - they were notable for something else first. MSJapan (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry if I was not able to clarify my point clearly.Firstly there articles for several journalists who here [5] here there is a category for journalists killed in the Iraq War .Journalists killed in War including those who otherwise were virtually unknown before there death. Further International journalist organisations note Punniyamurthy Sathyamurthy as journalist[6].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a bio, fails notability criteria. His death isn't even notable because it was not a murder/assassination, meaning he wasn't targeted by the air strike. Wikipiedia is not a memorial. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good rational for keeping the article either. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Pharaoh of the Wizards Taprobanus (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS first and foremot, but also no a memorial. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion as an attack page (CSD G10). Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Cenni[edit]

This seems to be a hoax - tagged "unreferenced" for four months, since the day it was created, but no source supplied, and I can find none. A Google search for "Alberto Cenni" + umpire finds only this article, a WP mirror, and a teenage social-networking site called "Habbo" which has some of the same text, input on 13 Oct 2008, two days before this article was created. The talk page of the author Cloughy96 (talk · contribs) gives no confidence, showing a string of deleted articles and previous accusations of hoaxing. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it wasn't a WP:HOAX, then this google search would yield more than two hits - this article and a mirror of this article. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Tagged as WP:HOAX, hopefully a sysop will nuke it quickly. All elaborate hoaxes should be treated as vandalism and removed. §FreeRangeFrog 19:04, 26 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Melon for Ecstasy[edit]

Non Notable story about a guy humping melons. No refs. God Ω War 16:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep not many hits on Google (I got 543), but there does seem to be something there. I'll tag it for notability and references for now. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason I declined the prod. John Fortune is such a major figure that as far as I'm concerned, all his published works are implicitly notable. – iridescent 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete At first I thought this was a hoax, but then I looked it up and there seemed to be some coverage; even a possible review by the New York Times in 1971. But searching the Times, searching my university library, and searching the internet, it appears that coverage by a non-trivial source is limited to the possible NYT review, if it exists. And notability is not a matter of one source; it has to be many sources from which an article containing 100% verifyable info can be written. If many sources can be produced, I would withdraw my delete, but I don't see it being very likely. Mrathel (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only a fraction of newspapers are electronically archived back to the 1970s, so it's quite possible that there are reviews besides the New York Times. But even if we can't find additional reviews, I think parts of this article are at least mergeworthy. Zagalejo^^^ 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know why Mrathel cast any doubt on whether the New York Times review exists - here's a preview of it. A Google Books search finds more sources, including a review in The Spectator and references in other books. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 27 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. Even some comments to keep indicate that sources referring to this game show little more than trivial coverage (e.g. single line comparisons to other games), so the discussion tends to confirm the nominator's rationale that this article does not meet [{WP:N]] Fritzpoll (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Fire![edit]

Three grounds: Not notable, no reliable sources have been found after search, and appears to be veiled advertising (article creator has contributed nothing to wikipedia except this article and a few edits concerning these wargaming rules or their authors) Wolfhound1000 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 162k ghits for "rapid fire" wargame, which indicates some notability among wargamers. With my extremely limited knowledge of these things, I am not a good candidate to try to add anything. Would it make sense to tag the article with some combination of {{notability}}, {{expert-subject}}, and neutrality for a couple of months, then renominate?Vulture19 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Vulture19 says, it does seem to be a notable game. I've tried looking for references to improve the article but I keep getting either comparisons (eg. "Game X is as good/not as good as Rapid Fire") or links to magazines that I do not own (apparently Wargames Illustrated has a few articles about it). This indicates some notability but isn't immediately helpful for reference pruposes. The article needs to be improved but I don't think it should be deleted. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Boardgamegeek has basically nothing, but Wargames Illustrated has a review and a number of scenarios for the game [7]. Not a very general source (which is not required), nor multiple (which pretty much is) but I suspect there are other RS reviews out there. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically a fanzine, not the sort of reliable source that is required to establish notability. Assorted-photo-guy (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't show anything. When I search that site through Google for "rapid fire", the only thing I get is http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.wargamesillustrated.net%2F+%22rapid+fire%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= the title mentioned briefly and nothing more in a .pdf file. Where on that site is it listed? Dream Focus 15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure why the link doesn't work, but if you click on "WI210 - 219" on the left it brings you to where I was trying to link to. The issue lists a review of Rapid Fire (no details) and a few other things involving Rapid Fire. Let me know if that _still_ doesn't work. Hobit (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep I know the game is very well known and highly thought of among wargamers, but online sources are hard to come by For example, it was premiered at Salute 05, one of the biggest wargames conventions, run by South London Warlords. However although both Salute and SLW have (fairly basic) websites, they don't feature detailed info either on the premiere, or on games run using Rapid Fire! rules in subsequent Salutes. It has at least one busy discussion forum, but of course you need passwords for that. I'll add what I can. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nominator, there should not be a confusion between whether it is a popular game and whether this is a notable subject for a wiki article. Can't find any reliable sources, it does not meet the criteria for notability. The keep votes above seem to acknowledge this. The article looks like its been tagged since fall of 08 and still no sources. Sources are what wikipedia is all about, not just things we like. Jewish-wargamer (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment : If wikipedia's aim is to be encyclopaedic, then it must surely consider the popular to be notable. Indeed, how can a popular game - that has remained popular over the last 15 years - not be at least currently notable? Perhaps a discussion for a different place. The game has been in use for a considerable number of years, and repeatedly reviewed in every UK wargaming magazine (of which there are only two, neither of with have online archive). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - From WP:N, It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic — although those may contribute. So no hard and fast rule on popularity. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Using this search, I was unable to find anything that would establish notability for this game. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the articles I linked to above? Hobit (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your link above takes me to a site to buy a paper magazine. Without seeing it, I can't judge what the magazine might say, but it doesn't appear that any of the featured articles in the advertisement focus on this game. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the way they do links there makes a pure URL not enough information (which I hadnt' realized). Try following the link again and clicking on "WI210 - 219". No details, but clearly a review and another couple articles. Hobit (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched the website they claim to have won an award at Leeds War Games Club and I don't see any mention of that. Also, this is just a small club of people, meeting in some kid's basement over in England, not some major organization. Googling for "Rapid Fire" will give you plenty of links to things unrelated to this game, so you can't go by the number of Google hits, of course. I'm still searching for information about it, before making my decision. Dream Focus 15:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get over 3400 hits when I Google [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Rapid+Fire!%22+%22tabletop%22+%22wargaming%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= "Rapid Fire!" "tabletop" and "wargaming". I look through the first three pages of results, and it seems like a legitimate game. The article does read like a commercial though, so needs some work. Dream Focus 15:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the comments above about the game getting hits on google (or whatever), that's not really what notability is all about. There simply does not seem to be any significant coverage of this game in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Delete. Assorted-photo-guy (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neal Turner[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article sufficiently improved Fritzpoll (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family opera initiative[edit]

Non-notable company. Lots of links, but most to either the company's own site or to "references" that really are nothing more than information about a name mentioned in the article, but not tying that name back to the company. Google hits are mostly the company itself or myspace or business listings. Google news hits are event announcements only (save for one NY Times review -- indicating POSSIBLE notability). Article borders on spam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Online references are few, due to the fact that the opera world is not fully web integrated. the magazines which mostly discuss the company are not online and do not have achieves of their articles for further debate. the company itself is notable throughout the opera/theater world as are the artists and staff of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwass85 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not necessarily with prejudice. Apparently some kind of theatrical troupe performing original musicals or operas. Possibly notable, but the entire article reads like a press release and would need to be rewritten completely even if it were notable: "The fat lady sings? EXPLODE her and all those images and preconceptions. These “opera-musicals” are accessible. They embrace an indigenous vernacular energy; they burst forth in our own American-ness; and they resonate with our own language. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ for now, see below. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thanks to Voceditenore. The current version is much, much better. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they sound wonderful. I am a big fan of the arts myself. It is true though that it is very "selling" of them, but it just needs some good old formatting and rewording. I think it should stay up. I will also give some look into this troupe as I now have some interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graydengrian (talk • contribs) 04:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will galdly change what needs to be changed to keep this notable organization on wikipedia. I am just not sure on how to do this. Make it less of a "sell" correct? I will work on that. What other suggestions are there? This company is wonderful. the people are great and they work very hard. They have been doing this work for years and years. I think they are significant and deserve to stay in Wikipedia. please tell me what to do so I can help them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwass85 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is absurd to delete this page or consider so. The artists working on these projects are major names. The current project, ANIMAL TALES, is the last significant work by George Plimpton. Grethe Barrett Holby is the Founder of AOP and a 15 year veteran of the industry. Eugenio Carmi, Eve Beglarian, Kitty Brazelton: these are all artists of weight. I hope a few of the bloggers here come with some knowledge of contemporary American music. Ridiculous to delete. Tipok (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a "blog"; it tries to be an online encyclopedia, and ideally our comments are directed towards discerning the presence or lack of encyclopedia-worthiness in articles discussed here.

I would be lying if I said that discussions among Wikipedia editors are entirely free of blog-like elements. We do have something of a shared culture here, and one aspect of the local culture is a fairly deep suspicion of promotion and self-promotion. The first draft of this article contained the sort of language that raised red flags because of these community values. My review of the current article indicates that much of that language seems to have been edited out. So far, so good.

Now, another community proverb holds that "notability is not inherited". An amateur pianist does not get into an encyclopedia because she's playing Mozart. This troupe may well perform works by notable composers without being notable in itself. The most basic criteria for inclusion, what we not entirely satisfactorily call "notability", requires substantial coverage of the troupe in question by disinterested third parties in reliable sources. I'm not convinced we're there yet, but this article seems a lot better than the version I first read did. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The productions (and collaborators) are notable. The article has a few references to independent, reliable sources, but it needs more. In the next couple of days, I'll see if I can some in specialist opera publications, but even now I think it qualifies as a weak keep. I strongly suggest the article's creator try to supply more as well. However, and this is a big "however", the article needs a major re-write. I've formatted it to at least conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style but I've also tagged it for instances of verbatim copy-paste from the official website and overly promotional tone. In the later instances, the material from their web site and associated blog has not been copied verbatim but it is such close paraphasing that it verges on copyvio. I also removed the multiple duplicate linkages both to relevant Wikipedia articles and to the official web site of FOI and those of its collaborators. I don't think this was intentional spam, just an inexperienced editor. It's also pretty obvious that the article's creator has a major conflict of interest. That is not a reason for deleting an article, but I strongly suggest that he and his collaborators read WP:COI for guidance on editing under these circumstances and that they bear in mind that a Wikipedia article is not an alternate web site for their organization. Its layout, tone, and content must conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Udate: I've completely re-written this, something I don't do unless I think an article is worth saving. I've also added more references and formatted the others. They're working in a niche area and genre and major online coverage isn't easy to come by, but in my view, the ones by Drozdowski, Filipski, Graeber, Maupin, and WNYC put them "over the line". Note also that the company doesn't just perform works by notable writers and composers, e.g. Kitty Brazelton, George Plimpton, Richard Peaslee, Billy Aronson, Rusty Magee, etc. they actually commission the works and produce their premieres. Voceditenore (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice save Voceditenore. The article meets the notability requirements now at WP:Music and it is verified through multiple independent reliable sources.Nrswanson (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 19:55, 28 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 PeterSymonds (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iou Kuroda[edit]

Unnotable manga artist. Fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage in third-party sources, no major achievements, no really notable series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of his short stories was adapted as a animated feature film, and a series of his won a major prize and was adapted as a live-action TV series. That's two clearly notable series, and so passes WP:CREATIVE as far as I'm concerned. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its article claims it won a single award with no citation backing it up. And manga/anime/short stories being adapted into a film doesn't make the author notable, only minor notability on the series. Either way, though, Creative does not confer notability for creating two small semi-notable series (or even two notable ones). Neither has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and neither has been the subject of other films nor books. Adapted to isn't the same as being the subject of.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that http://plaza.bunka.go.jp/english/festival/2002/manga/000401/index.php would be the citation you probably didn't look for. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for all Japan Media Arts Festival award winners can be found using the reference links at the bottom of the award's article. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per others. BTW, we should add these citations to the articles of the winners. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been on my plate to propagate out references for the Japan Media Arts Festival award winners ... as soon as I finish compiling the actual tables of winners. Which has been on my plate for ... over a year. :-( —Quasirandom (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will give it a go tomorrow. --KrebMarkt 21:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Quasirandom. Multiple examples of notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His works are notable enough to have wikipedia articles for them. Policies are guidelines, you don't follow them exactly, if it overrides common sense. That's what the wikipedia says. Dream Focus 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep per all above rdunn PLIB 15:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A top dog of the Japan Media Arts Festival held by the Agency for Cultural Affairs so that not some cheap & homebrew not notable award unless you think that Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs is incompetent for manga. --KrebMarkt 18:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nasu has been licensed in French, and Sexy Voice and Robo has been licensed in English (ANN review, IGN review, Mania review) and Spanish. Even without looking in those other languages, that's already multiply reviewed. Given the major award for Sexy Voice and Robo in Japan, for which winners usually get significant media coverage, we can presume that there was also coverage there. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — extremely notable manga artist, who has won several major awards, as detailed comprehensively by Quasirandom, KrebMarkt and others. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable manga artist. Movie based on his work, and a major work translated into English -- one that I'm sure has several highly positive reviews. Doceirias (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suppose due to the sources provided, I sincerely hope that they constitute as "reliable" sources. JBsupreme (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That should placate the RS issue Copyrights held by the Agency for Cultural Affairs anyone contesting this website as RS should commit Sepuku. --KrebMarkt 11:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reliability of ANN, Mania, and IGN have all been vetted, yes. For awards in general, the website of the awarding body is, like that of charting records, always considered the best possible source. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Wheelock[edit]

Contested prod. In my opinion,this article fails WP:CSD#A7. It's age is the only thing stopping me delete it on sight. Judging by this revision from March 2006, the article has lacked reliable third-part sources for at least three years (whatever other editors think - check revisions in between then and now). The only external links are to the company itself, and as such this article does nothing to demonstrate any form of notability. _Talk Islander 14:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep. I added to the talk page over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fire Protection that it was being proposed for deletion. Not only is Cooper Wheelock in a list over there awaiting rating, A Cooper Wheelock Siren (File:Wheelock_7002T.png#filelinks) is used in *many* articles as a result of being the primary image in the [[Template:Fire protection]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fire Protection]]Naraht (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think they are a major company in the industry, judging by their prominence in catalogs and product listings, but the field is so specialized that it's hard to find sources that arent either based on PR, or just deal with the acquisition of the constituent firms.DGG (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Wheelock is very much a major player in the fire alarm market, though its products may not always be branded as such (for instance, I have NEVER seen Wheelock's pull station branded as Wheelock except on Wheelock's own site). I admit, the article needs work, since there is very little corporate history and more a discussion of a few products. And yes - the alarm horn on all the fire protection templates is a Wheelock 7002T horn/strobe. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insuffficient notability. Kilmer-san (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs a little cleanup for tone and focus, but the company is the go-to for this kind of product. While importance or popularity does not equate to notability, I agree with DGG on sourcing problems for ubiquitous infrastructure-type companies like this. Arakunem^Talk 16:57, 27 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 redirected to Dead or Alive (band). The info is already there so no need for a merge. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmares in Wax[edit]

non notable band fails, WP:N and WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC Troyster87 (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Clearly notable. The band included Pete Burns for one thing, and there's a substantial Allmusic bio, as well as coverage in George Gimarc's Punk Diary book. There's plenty of scope for expansion, but it could and probably should be merged into Dead or Alive (band), which already seems to include the current content of this article.--Michig (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect to Dead or Alive (band). Artw (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have gone ahead and edited Dead or Alive (band) in anticipation of a ~~merge and~~ redirect.--Michig (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dead or Alive (band). JamesBurns (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge given that they evolved into Dead or Alive. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Notability established due to connection to Burns and Dead or Alive, but not nearly enough material there to warrant a whole article. No prejudice to promoting to standalone ref if someone can expand and source it. §FreeRangeFrog 21:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this band is notable for all reasons stated above. If some serious material can be found and sourced, then Keep, otherwise, into the Dead or Alive page is fine. - eo (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've gone ahead and redirected to Dead or Alive, since that article already contained the content of this one. Could someone close this discussion - it's pointless wasting any more time on it, and it's clear that merge and redirect is the consensus view. I'm not convinced this even needed to be relisted.--Michig (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A9. ... discospinster _talk 21:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zombies vs. Robots![edit]

Zombies_vs._Robots! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This article is an orphan page for an album, by a band whose page was deleted from Wikipeida months ago. This page should have been deleted along with the main page of the band. Danleary25 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This qualifies for a WP:SPEEDY#A9. --JD554 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Clear A9. Tagged. §FreeRangeFrog 21:05, 26 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 Deleted by request of the original author. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intranet Benchmarking Forum[edit]

Looks like advertising. There are no news hits via Google, no book hits via Google. There are also no trade magazine hits and only hits for the organization itself or companies in it or notices of meetings fr33k man -s- 14:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another non-consumer tech business using Wikipedia as a free web host for advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it almost looks like the article was copied right out of a pamphlet advertising the company. I don't trust the "references" given in the article either. -- Atama ^chat 22:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started this article a couple of days ago. I'm a new contributor, and it looks like I've unintentionally contravened the policy on advertising. I agree that the article should go, so please go ahead and Delete.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Heskey[edit]

Non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE; he has never played in a fully-pro league and has not earned full international honours. Originally PRODded, but the PROD ws removed by an IP user, with no rationale given. Giant Snowman 12:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Yet. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Athlete until, if he plays a full international for Antigua. No notability. Parslad (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE due to him not playing at a fully professional level or in a competitive international. Unfortunately, notability can't be inherited from a cousin. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE due to him not playing at a fully professional level or in a competitive full international. TerriersFan (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a relative of Emile Heskey does not make him notable. Uksam88 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. DeMoN2009 22:10, 26 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) The question of whether the new user is truly Mr. Burton are made irrelevant by the lack of sources and lack of indication of notability. Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Burton[edit]

De-PRODDED. Non-notable insurance broker. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing indication fulfillment of WP:BIO. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What thin veneer of claimed notability is completely unsourced anyway. Unsourced BLP, fails WP:BIO, take yer pick. §FreeRangeFrog 21:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although largely accurate, and dare I say understated, I had no wish for this private information to be placed in the public domain in the first place. You may mail me to confirm the authenticity of this message if you so choose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjburton (talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the primary author in real life, perhaps you could ask them to echo your request. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, this NEVER should have been de-prodded. What a silly game. JBsupreme (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a special case, I've blanked the article and nominated it for speedy deletion, based on the comment by Davidjburton. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:18, 27 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 as A9. ... discospinster _talk 21:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life, Love and Family[edit]

Contested prod. Vanity piece written by non-notable singer. Fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:CRYSTAL. andy (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-notable, way into the future, unnamed, unwritten. Fails WP:N, WP:HAMMER, WP:ALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL and many many others I'm sure. --Ged UK 11:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ALBUM and WP:CRYSTAL. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-written vanity piece by totally non-notable musician. No verifiability whatsoever. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. Tarheel95 Talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete - Clear WP:CSD#A9. Tagged. §FreeRangeFrog 21:07, 26 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. If it snows here, maybe it won't this weekend. StarM 02:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Chen[edit]

Clearly this 14 year old does not play 1st class cricket as stated and is not notable. Grahame (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The article is written as WP:SPAM and has serious WP:CBALL issues. No one can predict if he will be a cricket star. Only time will tell. But he fails notability at present. --Artene50 (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A 14-year-old "professional cricketer"? Give me a break! Fails WP:ATHLETE. Nothing more than a young kid's vanity page. Probably speedy delete (G3) for "blatant and obvious misinformation". WWGB (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced obvious WP:HOAX. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Article claims that he plays first class cricket for his school. Needless to say that this isn't first class cricket. No other claims to notability in article Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, as per nomination.Smallman12q (talk) 20:11, 26 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 as being a contribution by a banned user (CSD G5). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new holocaust[edit]

Non-notable term. One reference simply refers to a banner with the text, and is not a good source for the statement. The third source has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I cannot judge the second reference without a link. Indeed, as far as I can tell from a Google search, this term is used to describe just about any conflict one can think of - not just the one presented here. And, indeed, this article seems very much like a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I originally tagged for WP:CSD as an attack page, but with the removal of the Mengele image, perhaps WP:AfD is the way to go. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Feels like a POV fork to me. The sources don't back up the article's claims, they refer to New Holocaust something else (like book), which isn't the same as New Holocaust, so doesn't have WP:RS. Also hits WP:Neologism. --Ged UK 11:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term does feel like a neologism and lacks WP:RS at present. --Artene50 (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable unsourced neologism, sources do not support article. Edward321 (talk) 14:31, 26 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of the 100 wealthiest people[edit]

I can't see how any of the facts giving this list are substantiated. I think it detracts from wikipedia to represent we have knowledge of the 100 wealthiest people. The various sources include such publications as Forbes which, itself, freely claims their list is merely a subjective opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't represent opinion as fact. This is a highly disputable area, open to all manner of manipulation and false representation. Chzz ► 08:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that a list is constantly changing and/or may not be 100% accurate doesn't present a reason to delete IMO. Would you delete List of countries by population, which suffers from the same issues? Lists of the wealthy are regularly compounded by Forbes, Fortune, etc and there's no reason I see that WP can't do the same. It's not opinion if it's well sourced and any discrepancies can be noted with footnotes or otherwise. Oren0 (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list should have references--and will certainly change--but the topic surely merits notability. --Artene50 (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Most encyclopedic content is the opinion and interpretation of one or more researchers--encyclopedias do not present raw data. There is no original research here; this list is backed up by some of the most notable sources. Owen× ☎ 11:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Although it is true that these values do frequently change, there are thousands of articles that could have the same thing said about them. A well sourced and informative article such as this shouldn't be deleted. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 13:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add a keep here. This is a notable list. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep. Even if it's just "according to Forbes" it's notable. If it's really a problem can't a table be made like that on list of countries by GDP? Make columns for each conflicting source and number the people there. Merpin (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is referenced, and it is encyclopedic content. Note: I am the article's creator. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although some of it is not referenced all that well, it is verifiable. Tavix (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gigantic violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOR, and unfixable. Best one can do is a Forbes list of 100 wealthiest people, but that's a different article than this one, as well as a possible copyright violation. THF (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only synthesis if we're combining info in a novel way that reliable sources haven't done. Numerous sources have compiled lists such as this so what's original about the research? Oren0 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sort of information has been around for a long time and has been published in magazines and newspapers. We aren't reaching any new conclusion, so I don't believe that SYNTH applies. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The primary source (Forbes) is reliable and likely the best source available for this information. The article is heavily linked to other articles, both persons and businesses, and may be the only reason that Wikipedia users discover and explore those other pages. There does not appear to an alternative wealth based index on Lists of people, so the page serves a useful purpose. However, I do believe it is misnamed and should be restored back to the original List of billionaires (2008). The current name implies that it kept up-to-date, which if done would lead to the WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOR objections cited above. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep I don't understand what's wrong with this? If there is any other reliable source than Forbes than of course we can consult both of them and then prepare it, but as of now I don't see anything wrong with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.224.10 (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's well-cited, useful for our users, verifable, not defamatory, and of notable persons. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this nomination. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Sources given are mostly blogs, or don't mention Motley Moose, or are not independent. No actual reliable independent coverage of the blog has been shown. Fram (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motley Moose[edit]

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

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

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

Disputed speedy (A7). Political group blog that fails the notability test (the one reference is incidental) and the blatant advertising test, but only just. 9Nak (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails notability criteria. TheAE talk/sign 20:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —9Nak (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what criteria user "American Eagle" suggesting the page be "speedily deleted" used to arrive at that decision.Ks64q2 (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, the article fails WP:A7 (an unsourced organization that doesn't show notability). TheAE talk/sign 06:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_Magazine has written an article on the site, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalier_Daily and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Progress in regard to it's role in the Democratic "primary wars" of 2008, which are all print publications; it's been prominently featured on The Huffington Post, and other ancillary web sites like news aggregator Fark.com, as well as DailyKos, MyDD, and is well-known enough to be disparaged at RedState, a right-wing site havewhich gets similar amounts of traffic as The Motley Moose. Again, I don't see this suggestion for internet-only entries on several other "political blogs", so I'm still not clear how this site warranted one.Ks64q2 (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article is notable, and can provide sources that proves it, by all means, add them! Be sure to use inline citations, and make sure these sources are reliable, then add them. An administrator (I am not one) will decide, based on what happens on this page and if the article is notable or not, if it should be kept or deleted. Good luck! TheAE talk/sign 06:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, but the already-cited references aren't a good enough start? Ks64q2 (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Seems to me Article 7 is met by the references already on the page, as they even currently exclude internet-only sources. I'd like to see the deletion charge dismissed.Ks64q2 (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are two references currently on the page. One is a very low Alexa ranking. The second, a linked Prospect piece, fails the notability check as the single mention in a (>) 3 700 word article is purely incidental and does not amount to coverage. If there is non-trivial, non-incidental coverage in reliable sources, please be so kind as to cite it, or at least list it on the entry talk page. 9Nak (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I scan in the print articles from the Cavalier Daily and such? They don't archive their references online; I suppose I could just MLA cite it?71.63.26.57 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need not be online; it is hugely helpful to other contributors, but absolutely not a requirement. However, they must be cited such that others can verify them (offline, if necessary). Simply claiming coverage, as is the case on this page, does nothing to help establish consensus. So yes, please do cite the article(s). 9Nak (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9Nak, the piece from Prospect got written specifically be able to mention the site at the end in relation to it's role in ending the "primary war" between Clinton and Obama supporters. Furthermore, again, to compare sites, http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/vodkapundit.com is another side a few hundred thousand ranks below Motley Moose that, until I suggested it, didn't seem to be in danger of deletion. I fail to grasp the difference in criteria used t judge these two articles.Ks64q2 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Policy is to ignore (or at least avoid comparison with) other entries because that has been found to not be helpful.

Others can not judge the intention of the writer. Objectively, the Motley Moose is barely mentioned (at least by name). As per the general notability guideline must "address the subject directly in detail" and "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject". The cited article fails on both these counts.

Whoever wrote: ": Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Policy is to ignore (or at least avoid comparison with) other entries because that has been found to not be helpful."- I understand and can respect a policy of avoiding "B-b-b-b-but!" comparisons; nonetheless, I tend to agree with Ks64q2 in that I think the comparison should at least merit discussion as there is apparently two completely different sets of criteria being used to judged the pages. As far as I can see on the site that Ks64q2 noted misses all of the criteria suggested by 9Nak. If you don't want to rule on the basis of another article's alleged merits or detriments, fine, but at least explain the disparity.137.54.2.193 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)— 137.54.2.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Where's the threshold on who decides whether or not to can this deletion issue?Ks64q2 (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has answered the above questions, which I think are important ones. Any administrators or anyone else willing to take a crack at them?137.54.11.9 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)— 137.54.11.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'll have a go: Firstly the article that Ks64q2 is alluding to can be supported by multiple, reliable sources. I'm finding it difficult to say the same regarding the subject in question. Secondly, the deletion policy details how and when a discussion can be closed; usually it is after five days, but in this case this has been relisted so it may take longer. Does that answer the questions? one brave monkey 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 9Nak (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An interesting one, this, as it seems to be a faction of one politics blog taking their ball elsewhere. Whilst I'm conviced of the notability of the blog's creator and of its birthplace, I'm not so sure that this is really the sum of those parts. I'm concerned that this doesn't really describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance (my italics), rather falling back on one link, which is more-or-less the author's poltical agenda. The link that really argues best for inclusion is this one, which gives importance to the site. However, on its own it isn't really sufficient. I'll try to find more, but the case is shakey without more support of its significance. As an aside, please can we keep this discussion civil (having read the talk page of this AFD)? Remember this AFD is not a political huddle, merely discussion of an article about one. one brave monkey 09:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a fair bit of rummaging, I'm afraid that I can't see anything that supports the criteria here. The links currently provided are really either mentioning the site as an aside or are a brief summary of the nature of the content, rather than any solid support of notability. Perhaps in time it may get there, but not right now. Delete. one brave monkey 09:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, Ks64, It doesn't matter so much how unique they are in your opinion. One passing mention in "Flaming for Obama," and another passing mention on a blog. No notability. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the biggest remaining Virginia-based blog, after Raising Kaine has gone to pasture. The "passing" mention on that DailyKos blog was the fact this website had scooped that story, they were the ones who broke it, and DailyKos reported it as such. "Flaming for Obama" had a "passing" mention of it? Would a work that described the history of the internet and information sharing that ended on the note of Wikipedia's creation be a "passing" mention? Maybe so, but that's totally ignorant of the larger importance of that event. I agree with Ks64q2, PeterJukes, and ChrisBlask.137.54.11.9 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)— 137.54.11.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Google News and Google News Archives comes up empty with references to this blog. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no comment on the notability of the article itself, but there are a lot of comments misunderstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, some from the same editors. For the sake of the closing admin, you can probably leave that issue now. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now Though prepared to reevaluate if more sources are found; I couldn't see anything reliable and non-trivial to assert notability (none of those cited in the article pass these criteria). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the clarification on that issue, Blackmetalbaz. Another thought occurred to me on a different note. One of the articles currently referenced is a print article from a newspaper with no complete online archiving of it's past articles. So it's currently MLA sourced, but there are no other articles up- right now. Other articles/references exist (my apologies to those of you using Google exclusively to hunt down information on the website- I know, Google's great, but it ain't the end all and be all, believe it or not). I'm disappointed I didn't think of this earlier, but this article got flagged for "speedy deletion" a couple days after it got posted. I mean, don't we get any sort of window of maybe a couple-three weeks to actually build the article up? Or are we expected to sit down and pour hours into making it perfect from the get-go, hunting down all the references, getting all the cites in order, etc? I'm spending all of the time I could be spending improving this article defending it from being deleted, for fear that I'll return and suddenly everything will be gone! Do you think we could have some leeway to work on this article for a few weeks and then come back and justify it's existence then? Ks64q2 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate your issue, and obviously want to be as helpful as possible if you want to make a decent article out of this. The way things work round here is that you should basically build this up in your sandbox (particularly if this is your first article) before posting it, to avoid this kind of issue. As things stand, this article may well be deleted, but I suggest you save the content and work on it and consider reposting when you have found these sources demonstrating notability. I'll be happy to help you out any way I can at that point, but at present I'm not sure it'll be around for a few weeks or so. But hey, I'm not an admin. (Final point, and not being arsey, but any chance you could sort out the paragraph thing, because this AfD is getting a bit hard to follow :-)) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, there is now 13 references. Dispute their relatively validity in relation to keep the article or not, there's a tag on the article that says it cites "no sources". Could we please get that removed? Ks64q2 (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Changed to refimprove, but this is probably discussion for the article talk page, not here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a half-dozen new sources, all from "notable" locations. Can we ditch the refimprove now, too? Ks64q2 (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmetalbaz suggested moving some of this chat to the "discussion" tab, in order to clear up the que on the Articles for Deletion page and make the general flow easier to follow, but since we seem to be having all the discussion here, I'll make a few points.

There are now seventeen cites from a variety of sources (from the aforementioned one on 21-FEB-2009), with new levels of notability, erm, notated.
There has been a general cleanup of the article.
There's only one missing reference right now, on the main page comparing the traffic from the Moose to other sites- it can be proven Motley Moose has a similar volume of page hits compared to OpenLeft.com, MyDD.com, FireDogLake.com, RedState.com, RaisingKaine.com, but that statistic is stuck on an Alexa widget that doesn't lend itself to linking. If that can be sourced as a non-web link, or simply to Alexa.com, that'll fix that one- the WP:Cite guidelines aren't quite clear on that note.
Capitalistroadster's suggestion that this article fails the "Google Test" is a fallacy per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Furthermore, as the Rescue Squad noted, Political Blogs have evolved dramatically in recent years and many have become central forums for public conversation. Vanity Blogs which are purely an individual's personal pulpit may, in most cases, be easily excluded from an encyclopedic record, but open multi-user multi-threading political forums are an entirely different case. The Motley Moose is as valid an entity to receive encyclopedic record as DailyKos, MyDD and other online public forums. These forums have become more a Public Square than has ever existed and will, as a class, only grow in significance. Even as a matter of simple historic record, the significant multi-user blogs of today will be items of interest for future research.
Finally, keep in mind that There is no deadline, consider the article's Potential, not just current state, and Give an article a chance. Not only that, but given the enormous amount of effort and change that's taken place on the page since TheAE made the suggestion to "speedily delete" the page a few hours after it's creation, I'd invoke The Heymann Standard. For a reference, take a look at this.

Strong keep. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)— Ks64q2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines. For those of you new to Wikipedia, *COUGH*canvassing*COUGH*, topics are usually considered appropriate for an article if they have been written about in a non-trivial manner by multiple reliable sources, independant of the subject. This aricle fails the notability guidelines because, while information can be found on the subject's existance, the subject's notability hasn't been proven. Not every blog can be written about on Wikipedia. The sources have to be about the blog itself, they can't merely mention it or refer to it. There has to be in-depth discussion of the blog, which hasn't happened yet. Themfromspace (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While my fellow Wikipedian and Deletionist Themfromspace makes an interesting point (though I am not certain what the "*COUGH*canvassing*COUGH*" comment refers to, or how it pertains to the conversation at hand), the notability guideline's suggestions on the topic of "Significant Coverage" may or may not be met on some of the references contained on the page (and certainly were in it's original-form that warranted the deletion suggestion), the above suggestion seems to be made without having referenced the new citations listed on the page. Please provide specific examples of any proper/improper citations you can see. Furthermore, I assure my colleague that any of the current contributor's involvement with the article in question nonwithstanding, the conflict of interest should play no role in this discussion. Not only that, but I would suggest that it's precisely the people who are linked with the project that will provide the most TLC to the page and ensure it will meet Wikipedian standards- though feel free to continue to "show no mercy", it actually helps improve the page in the long run, and ensure we can have a baseline level of quality here on Wikipedia. Thank you, and thank you for your input. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ks64q2, to avoid confusing the closing admin, can you please strike all but one of your Keep statements. It's generally only necessary to state your view once in that manner, and follow up with Comments (as I've done). Also, I'm going down the sources you've added (which are absolutely from the right types of source) but only one mentions the subject in question. I'm unsure whether notability can be inherited in this way, by asserting that of the contributers. Again, (trying to help as I have been all along), can you please keep in mind the criteria I mentioned in my first comment and see how this article can meet those? one brave monkey 06:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to Ks64q2 with edit conflict) Canvassing is a behaviour of trying to advertise a debate to a set of accounts likely to !vote for your side. I'm not accusing anybody of being guilty of it, but I'm pointing out that the behaviour of some voters here (such as IPs who have never edited Wikipedia before) is likely the result of canvassing. As to the sources, all of them that already exist are fine. What's needed is more sourcing. Any sourcing is good, but what's needed to meet the notability guidelines I referenced above is sourcing that demonstrates that this blog has recieved the attention (nontrivially) of the world. A passing reference or statistics about the blog aren't enough. For example, if an article in the New York Times, a major newspaper, were solely devoted to the discussion of this blog, most everybody would say it would meet WP:N. It might take several mentions in university campus newspapers for a consensus to agree that it meets WP:N, as one college's problem might not be notable to the world. As for the conflict of interest; conflict of interest is sometimes a problem when dealing with content but it's always a problem when dealing with intent. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for promotion, and it's highly suggested that articles be edited by subjects that do not have a financial interest in their articles, for obvious NPOV reasons. By the way, you should only !vote once in an AfD, any further commentary shouldn't include a bold !vote. Themfromspace (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck (stricken?) all but the last of my "keep" statements, per one brave monkey suggestion; thank you for pointing that out. For references, I'd question articles like ^[1], which was done with a now-US Congressman in one of the most closely-fought elections in the country. Most serious contenders for US Congress don't sit down with "un-notable" blogs, and said Congressman narrowly won the election by the strength of the numbers he got out of the voting precient the blog is headquartered/most active and popular in; the article referenced from The Cavalier Daily ran a mere two weeks before the election. Obviously, they haven't claimed to be the ones to "put him over the edge", as that would be presumptuous (and impossible to prove in any case), but it's something to consider in re notability. Furthermore, perhaps the Wikipedian standards in this area could be considered more fluid than rigid; there are a number of notable regulars on the site (some of whom, I believe, have their own Wikipedia pages), so while they don't mention the site specifically somewhere to be cited, the fact they participate on the site should add to it's noteworthiness. Another consideration is that one of the major sites linked source the article/scoop without mentioning the cite by name (just indirectly through the URL in a footnote); this is sort-of a Catch 22, as they apparently pay attention to the site, but gave no credit for us to reference to it. Is that a sufficient start? Themfromspace, I've perused your user-page and I understand your motives and intent; believe me, I'm with you. While I think it's important to be inclusive with Wikipedia, as I mentioned before, we want a baseline standard of quality. I only note one "keep" on the page other than mine (not counting the "discussion" thread, which has two more contributors), and while I'm pretty sure I know who contributed that, I assure you it wasn't through "canvassing". I discussed some of the notability concerns you had previously in this response, but I'd also like to point out that I have no link to the article's namesake in any personal interest (and certainly not a financial one!) in pushing to keep this article other than I occasionally contribute to discussions/diaries on the site. That, and having seen what the article was previously and wanting to have a fair shake to bring it up to Wikipedian standards rather than see it deleted. However, both of your comments nonwithstanding, none of the issues I suggested in my last "Strong Keep" comment have been hit on by anyone yet- such as the The Heymann Standard, or that this is not a "Vanity Blog" we're discussing (where Themfromspace's concerns about a "financial conflict of interest" would be more valid). Any thoughts you could provide on those issues would be appreciated, if nothing else for my own personal growth as a Wikipedia contributor. Ks64q2 (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When are 17 references actually just one? Detailed breakdown on the talk page. Suffice it to say that notability has still not been established. 9Nak (talk) 08:34, 27 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. G11. Salted for a few months. slakr^\ talk / 08:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilent[edit]

Blatand advertisin, cut-and-paste from promotional pamphlets. No ide what company does. " global Consulting and Solutions Integration company" - sounds like a software outsource sweatshop. No independent sources. 4 times deleted by 4 different admins (CSD G11) and recreated by single-purpose accounts. - 7-bubёn >t 07:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I hope I'm not being excessively bold in this case, but can't this be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4? I think so and am tagging it as such. Forgive me if I am doing this in error/making a mistake in how I go about it. -FaerieInGrey (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -agree with above. Advertising-like, no independent third party sources to indicate how/why it is notable. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:21, 26 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Eyez On Me (Cashis Mixtape)[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable mixtape, fails WP:MUSIC. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC with no reliable sources. --Artene50 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable non-charting mixtape. I note the same editor (User:Rikanatti) who created this article is the same editor who created a number of other Cashis mixtapes, up for deletion. There seems to be a level of self-promotion involved as a Rikanatti is involved in running Cashis' management Grind Entertainment WP:COI. JamesBurns (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. JoannaMinogue (talk) 01:10, 28 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 04:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Demo (Avenged Sevenfold)[edit]

Non-notable, non-charting demonstration disk that was released before the band had its first official release. Coverage by reliable sources seem to be lacking. Article was 1999 Demo until it was renamed because the original name was too generic to be useful. I am also nominating the following related pages with the same rationale:

B.Wind (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable album. Lugnuts (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-charting demo. Insufficient independent 3rd party sources. WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, no notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:23, 27 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 Peaceful nuclear explosions. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear demolition[edit]

Hoax or fantasy, apparently constructed as part of a 9/11 conspiracy theory. No verifiable sources, patently nonsensical assertion that Controlled Demolition, Inc. patented such a technique. Appears to be related to this [8]. Acroterion _(talk) 05:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as eh... what is this? Not a real and verifiable topic for an encyclopedia, that's for sure. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP Ugh! It was ugly to read. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. We already have an article related to this subject insofar as it is verifiable. WillOakland (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a hoax, or made up, or original research, or... god knows --L. Pistachio (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete ridiculousness. Tall buildings are torn down via deconstruction and the NRC (along with almost every citizens group ever to exist) would never approve this process for demolition. Nate • (chatter) 08:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My goodness, that's an imaginative theory. Also, a completely unverifiable and patently ridiculous one. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic of using ND to bring down buildings is imaginative to be sure. The term, moreover, is used by the military to refer to specific types of small nuclear devices. An article based on that usage would be correct. Collect (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has, in fact, contributed such an article, on Atomic demolition munitions. However, I removed the part about CDI as not verifiable. The remaining stub is appropriate and gives links to more detailed articles on ADMs. Acroterion _(talk) 13:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it further to remove the bizarre implication that the so-called "suitcase nukes" were intended for use for peaceful building demolition. Ten-kiloton weapons are kind of impractical for use in a city, unless you're trying to kill the people in it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the article, I assumed a military emergency, ~~but I doubt the creator was thinking along those lines.~~ Acroterion _(talk) 22:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I meant "military emergency", what do you think of me? You better put it back what you have removed, because otherwise it will have no sense. If "mini-nukes" were initially intended as "weapons" they would never be dubbed "demolition munitions" in the first instance. The point was they were never intended to kill enemy soldiers, but exclusively to demolish some large objects of infrastructure (more often your own, than that of your enemy), so by this logic they can't be called "weapons". That is why "mini-nukes" initially were a kind of engineering devices - akin to conventional explosive charges designed to the same effect (i.e. for "demolition"). That was from where they got their sticky name. It was much later - at the end of 60s - when it was found out that "mini-nukes" could also be successfully used in various sabotage operations. Then only they had to be formally elevated to "weapons" status, but, still, their former name "atomic demolition munitions" proved to be so sticky that it survived even until today. I don't want to offend anyone but it seems to me that in pursuit of observing "political correctness" you could even sacrifice elementary logic (don't take is a personal offense, please, it is just a constructive observation – and a call for improvement). For those who might think that I meant that "mini-nukes" could be used for "civil emergency" - please, re-read the first part of my main article "Nuclear Demolition" (I mean re-read its part that is about "Atomic Demolition"). And then - think again, if a person who wrote it could really think in that direction you imply here or not. I also would like to remind you that I am a bit specialist in nuclear weapons, unlike many of you. It was my profession for several years. Thanks for your kind understanding.--DKhalezov (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article, as with its source, www.nuclear-demolition.com/, has to be seen to be believed, and I'm saving it on my computer for further read before its inevitable deletion. It would make a great topic for an article in a technical journal, or for a science fiction magazine, and if it's ever published in a peer-reviewed journal of architecture or physics, then it would be welcome here. For those who get here too late to see it, the article asserts that the World Trade Center towers were collapsed (after the planes hit) by a controlled detonation of a small (several kilotons) nuclear weapon that had been placed there as a contingency; that there's one underneath the Sears Tower, if need be; and that there is a company that "patented" the process (lucky us-- it'll be available to everyone in a few more years). All it would require is for your local demolition company to have access to atomic weapons -- hopefully, they will have to be bonded in order to use those, kind of like a locksmith. Mandsford (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to know what building code requires us to implant a means of destruction in a building. My copy of the International Building Code seems to be missing this section. If it's there, I need to have a long talk with my insurance agent concerning a) my liability for neglecting to specify Section 99999 - Atomic Demolition Munitions in the project manual, and b) my liability for the loss of a medium-sized city if I screw up the calcs. Come to think of it, the architect's licensing exam was curiously remiss on this subject as well. Acroterion _(talk) 18:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion It seems that this topic goes to practicalities - the WTC nuclear demolition on 9/11. Please, note that the actual Wikipedia article that is debated here was very polite in this sense. It did mention neither the WTC, nor the 9/11 and it did not even imply anything of this kind. But it seems that many people got its point anyways. Well. For those interested in "encyclopadic" matters, here is something to think about. Here are all possible pre-9/11 meanings of the "ground zero" term from the biggest possible English dictionary: Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (pre-9/11 edition, of course): PICTURES CAN NOT BE SEEN HERE, BUT YOU CAN SEE IT HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Websters_English_Unabridged.jpg And about the last joke (about building code). It is not an international matter in this particular case. It is only local - in the United States. They did not allow at the end of 60s any skyscrapers to be built unless a satisfactory demolition scheme is provided (not necessary an emergency one, but just any one - one had to explain to the Department of Builidngs how he is going to demolish his structure in the future, otherwise, its construction would not be approved). And this exactly the matter with all modern tall steel-frame skyscrapers - such as the WTC or the Sears Tower. I guess after the 9/11 disaster they have modified that particular approach (quietly, of course, without informing people) and may be today it is not the same as it was before 2001. And don't forget also that when at 09.59 AM the South WTC Tower collapsed, the Sears Tower in Chicago was evacuated only 2 minutes later - i.e. at 10.01 AM, while the Empire State Building in New York was not evactuated. Just think about it before throwing your accusations at something you don't even know. It is always good to use brains a little bit. Especially for "encyclopedians". I agree that this article might violate some technical requirements for the Wikipedia, since it might sound to many like "original idea". But it does not mean that this "idea" is wrong itself. In fact, the WTC nuclear demolition idea was not even secret. I remember in the 80s I have even encountered mentioning of it in some American newspaper, but, unfortunately, I can't recollect which newspaper was it exactly, and to search through all newspapers is an impossible task. But in any case don't hesitate to review all various "ground zero" meanings at the link above. It might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKhalezov (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments on "ground zero" indicate that you are making a synthesis based on a single term. Your comments on evacuation times are of a similar nature. I should also point out that the International Building Code is the primary building code for the United States, and represents a combination of the BOCA, SBCC and UBC regional codes. New York has its own codes that are similar in scope, as does Chicago. The current NYC code was just updated in 2008, replacing the1968 code. Neither contains a provision that requires anticipation of demolition. As to the suggestion that any city would countenance the use of nuclear devices in the city limits for the efficient, convenient and comparatively inexpensive removal of inconveniently tall buildings, I have a certain amount of trouble taking that seriously. Acroterion _(talk) 22:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've deleted the photo from Webster's as a copyright violation. It does indeed reflect the primary definition of a nuclear aim point, but applying that to the popular term for the WTC site is a tautology. Acroterion _(talk) 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am surprized that you deleted that picture I took of my dictionary. It was actually my own dictionary (that I bought with my money) and my picture that I took of my own dictionary using my own photocamera... I thought it was self-evident right: if you possess a thing you have right to photograph your possession, isn't it? I guess I don't have a right to re-print this dictionary, but it does not seem to me that I am so devoid of any legal rights in regard to my property, that I can't even make a photocopy of one of its pages, not to say about photographing only of three dictionary's entries in a row... Doesn't it seem ridiculous to you, dear Acroterion? What about taking pictures of your own house - considering that your house might be a typical project created by some architect who secured his right as to its design? Is it prohibited too, using the same kind of logic? Actually, I am quite new to Wikipedia, so you might know more than me about legal matters, but I am amazed at to how little rights was left to me in regard to my own dictionary... Anyways, I respect your decision to remove the picture and so to prevent a potential copyright violation, since I consider you being more experienced than my humble self. But just to make sure that no one would miss the point due to absense of the removed picture, I provide here two links that lead to the same pictures published on my own website - there are all pre-9/11 definitions of "ground zero" in various dictionaries available there. Here are the links:

http://www.3truth911.com/what-is-ground-zero-definition-ground-zero-meaning.html http://www.3truth911.com/john_walcott_fbi_agents_and_haz-mat_suits_.html Everyone is welcome to visit these links and so to educate his- or her- self in regard to post-9/11 manipulations with English language. In fact, it is quite an interesting matter - to consider what "ground zero" used to mean before the 9/11, and what they made out of it today - it is especially significant when you contrast this manipulation with English language against background of "ground zero" responders who suffer from evident chronic radiation sickness and many of whom suffer so severe conditions that even require bone marrow transplanations... --DKhalezov (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into excessive detail, you clearly misunderstand Wikipedia's copyright policies. You may not post pictures of copyrighted material on Wikipedia. A dictionary is copyrighted, and you do not own the copyright, so you may not post that here, and it will be deleted on sight. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand (I understand your point about the definition), but your possession of a printed dictionary does not mean that you have the right to republish the copyrighted material under GFDL here (or anywhere else, for that matter). Quoting it (with attribution) would be fine. See WP:COPYRIGHT for all of the relevant policies. Acroterion _(talk) 13:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is some logic to this article. And I too recall certain newspapers commenting on a nuclear demolition. Perhaps someone could find some credible references and add them. Otherwise, this article should be merged into 9/11 conspiracies.Smallman12q (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, there is already an article on the only "nuclear demolition" program that ever existed in the US (which was just a propaganda job anyway). WillOakland (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have trouble believing this is serious. I think the website linked by Mansford above and this page are meant to be a joke. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any proof to this? As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I Googled around, but found nothing other than 9/11 conspiracies. When you Google for "nuclear demolition" -"9/11" -"world trade center" -"wtc", then not much else comes up. I remember a documentary about how they tested nuclear explosions for land moving purposes, and considered it for that purpose(before all their radiation test convinced them otherwise), however I don't recall anyone considering using it for taking out just one building at a time. Dream Focus 16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Then redirect to Peaceful nuclear explosions. The concept of nuclear demolition isn't completely implausible, though using it in a city is. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 18:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, man. You noticed something positive in this article. You said: that "concept is not completely implosible". Please, note now that his article describes a "CONCEPT" only. It does not say that it must be necessarily the WTC in New York or the Sears Tower in Chicago. It does not even say that it must be in America, or in Russia, or in China, or in India; and it does not say that it must be within city limits or outside of city limits. All this article actually does - it describes a principle on how to use a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge (which is 8 times as much compare to a Hiroshima bomb) to demolish a single structure without incinerating entire surroundings and nothing more than this. The rest of awful conclusions (such as attributing it to the particular WTC case) you apparently did on your own, without any invitation from my side. I did not even hint it in the article. Just think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKhalezov (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not just describing a "principle." It's saying specifically that something was developed in the 1960s and that there is a patent on it. Those are claims that have to be verified. If the rest of the article describes your principle or someone else's unpublished principle, then that does not belong here. WillOakland (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is a concept that has yet to be put into action. I don't quite understand what the reason for deleting this article is other than it is poorly sourced.Smallman12q (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a concept the article author made up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:15, 28 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.

Again I have to agree that this article is not sourced, however thousands of others are not sourced either and the people at Wikipedia have no problem with them. Why is this one particular article so offensive to everyone's sensibilities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsxr1100 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is what happened. Except they were no "mini-nukes" but the regular 150kt nukes detonated 75m underground at all 3 towers. The infrastructure for it was built in in the 60's, and was required by building officials, since there were never built anything that strong in the history. The nuke weakens the inner structure of the tower i.e. the inner columns by a seismic shockwave. A regular explosive cannot pulverize steel, it can only cut or melt is. However a seismic pressurevawe produced by a nuclear explosion CAN. Then the tower inner structure falls into a cavity created by the bomb and the outer walls follow hence the near freefall speed, and very little debris pile and minimal damage to surrounding structures. The energy required to produce that amount of steel dust is exclusively consistent with a nuclear blast, the other explosives were auxiliary only and by far not enough to bring the towers down. The alleged planes were also for theatrics only, postfabricated into the newsfeed videos. No planes hit anything.--Dmitri 152 (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Basketball Association (2000-) Standings[edit]

Fails WP:NOT#STATS as an unencyclopedic stat page of Basketball standings. Tavix (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into American Basketball Association (2000–) or Keep Spinach Monster (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this as an acceptable alternative to individual articles about the league's 2000-2001 season, 2001-2002 season, 2002-2003 season, etc. Normally, I would endorse a merge, but the parent article is fairly large, and a spinoff is necessary. What this needs is some narrative to accompany the year-by-year summaries. Mandsford (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOT#STATS doesn't apply to league standings at all (see all the various standings of virtually every professional sports league with an article in Wikipedia). On the other hand, this is unreferenced and obsolete. It's in dire need of updating. Merging into a large and rapidly expanding article is not a reasonable thing to do here, but neither is deletion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, what is your proof that NOTSTATS doesn't apply? It says nothing about standings being exempt. Also, the simple fact that there are others out there doesn't give a right to keep them, per WP:OTHERSTUFF.Tavix (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, standings are not statistics - they are, in fact, rankings. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you think rankings come about? Because one team's stats are better than another team. So standings are essentially a form of statistic in which the stats determine placement. Tavix (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a standard across all professional sports league articles in Wikipedia. My other suggestion might be to split into separate articles for each ABA2K season. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF? Just because other professional sports league articles have them doesn't mean it makes it correct practice. Tavix (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Nom is attempting a bit of wikilawyering on this one by trying to contort the concept of statistics to support a nomination that is based more on WP:IDONTLIKEIT than on WP:NOT. The fact that the reporting of standings occurs on so many Wikipedia articles actually reflects a widespread consensus (by the way - there's a Wikipedia policy being followed here!), which must not be ignored here. B.Wind (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW, WP:CCC. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet & Clank Future: (TBA)[edit]

The original article was prodded by yours truly when the author, upon myself asking if he wanted to do so, userfied it in good faith – see User:HK22/Unnamed Ratchet & Clank Future Sequel. However, before the cross-namespace redirect could be deleted per R2, another editor started editing it over the CNR and moved it to the current name. As with the original article that is now userfied, I use the same rationale from my prod: Article contains purely unverifiable speculation about a new game in development, which goes against Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It also doesn't contain anything that is not already mentioned in the Ratchet & Clank (series) article as of right now. Merging or redirection does not make sense as there is nothing verifiable to merge, nor would it be a plausible search term, especially when the game's title is [not] officially announced. (Hence the userfication since it's very likely the article will be suitable for inclusion in the future.) MuZemike 04:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 04:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to series article; speculation about future games, if such speculation is in fact appropriate, should be directed there, as per general practice (Halo 3: ODST was redirected to Halo (series) while it was unofficial, for example.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes it can be mentioned on the main Ratchet & Clank page, but I don't think this is a likely name to be written by users (hence why I don't suggest a redirect). TJ Spyke 06:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Blatantly speculative material with no assertion of notability. Not a likely redirect, either. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 07:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would suggest a redirect but the article's title isn't very useful and is unlikely to be used. Delete as it is unsourced speculation. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 08:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Oppose redirect for now. Aside from an unreferenced mention from the developer, the rest is blatant original research. The properly referenced interview sentence might be worth merging into series article, but nothing else. MLauba (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Oppose Redirect - Blatant speculation, violates WP:CBALL and WP:NOR. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 19:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen sensor network[edit]

Lack of notability, and bordering on original research. Prod contested in talk page. Vsion (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic! But delete nonetheless because the provided sources do not establish notability since they can hardly be called reliable. The first reference has such strange bibliographical info that I can't tell what it is, the second link is dead, the third is a PowerPoint presentation by someone from a company (organization?) called Knoesis--very interesting, but not like reading an article in the NYT--and the fourth is a newsletter kind of thing from a company called Mogility. Couple that with the four hits for the phrase on Google and we have something really cutting edge that the world and Wikipedia just aren't ready for yet. In other words, not notable. Delete. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an emerging paradigm in social computing research, a/k/a a non-notable neologism. Contains more words than information, as is typical of promotional gibberish, making much of this close to patent nonsense: Citizen sensing is an activity enabled by citizen sensors. A closely related activity to citizen sensing is mobile participatory sensing and people-centric sensing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional clarification in the talk page of this article. user:kgomadam. Please provide additional clarification. I am a researcher and I feel Wikipedia must have really cutting articles and that would enable Wikipedia to serve as a platform for enhancement. Further, people might add more references and what not. I dont think that the reason is convincing enough.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Che people[edit]

As noted on the talk page, it is suspected that the article may be a joke article rather than a balanced article on Che people. Required references to support the points made are also lacking and unlikely to be forthcoming. In short, the article is essentially original research. Albert584 (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue appears to be only whether Hakka are Che or Han -- which is not sufficient reason for deletion as that is a content dispute at most. [9] is, apparently, an "official list." [10] refers to the "A Che" people. In short -- a matter for the article talk page, not for here. Collect (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first web site you gave does indeed display the official list of the 56 "nationalities" in the PRC. Unfortunately, I wouldn't rely too much on that web site for other information as it appears to contain some misinformation, e.g. the page on Hakka people gives blatantly false information about their origins. Albert584 (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that web site actually relies on Wikipedia pages so you can't use it as a source due to the fact that editors are not allowed to cite other Wikipedia pages as sources in the article namespace. Albert584 (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Hakka are Che or Han is not actually the reason why I nominated this article for deletion in the first place. Rather, a conspicuous lack of sources to back up virtually the entire article combined with the fact that the only major contributor appears to be the article creator raises my doubt as to the truthfulness of the article. I really do suspect that this article was intended to be a parody or some other kind of joke. Its main ideas have essentially remained the same for over two years! Albert584 (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Collect. Edward321 (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't fully understand the bit about how "The issue appears to be only whether Hakka are Che or Han". The objector actually complained about how the article implied that some Che people assimilated to Hakka culture, a sign that he believes may indicate that the article is actually a hoax despite the fact that Che people actually existed. As far as I know and as far as the article is concerned, Che itself is as much as an ethnic group as Hakka or Han are. Also, it seems that historically, Hakkas were not considered Han, e.g. apparently, during World War 2, the Japanese differentiated between Han and Hakka. Furthermore, I wonder if the bit about Hmong languages and people is even true or just pure speculation, which naturally leads one to question the motive of the editor who created this article in the first place. In any case, I believe that this article definitely needs a complete rewrite. There just isn't any definitive information on, say, the interaction between Yuet and Che. It is also surprising that an article that is unsourced from start to finish and with very limited scrutiny managed to stay for so long. Albert584 (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that someone who knows more about the subject should notify User:HenryLi so that he, the creator of the article, can provide the necessary sources. Albert584 (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Albert doesn't understand the article, it's probably because its not well written, so it should be attributed 'stub' status until further clarification. But, had Albert584 looked at the page itself, he would have clicked to see if other wikis had a related item. Sure enough, the Chinese wiki does. Have you considered the possibility that the major contributor is a translator from the other wiki? Dylanwhs (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I request that the AFD nomination be closed as keep as per WP:SNOW. However, I would like to point out that some editors have expressed concern about minimum standards required across different wikis. The Chinese wiki you just mentioned is known to be notoriously lax about ensuring that the articles it maintains are well-referenced (that is, appropriate sources being used and not just any source) (see WP:Articles_for_deletion/Differences_between_Huaxia_and_barbarians for an example of such allegations). Also, even if this article was originally a translation of an article from a wiki in a language other than English, this does not excuse the article creator or any other major contributors not providing sources and allowing it to remain that way for two years. It is time that the stub tag was applied. Albert584 (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since I only understand English, it is impossible for me to determine what is said about Che people in the Chinese language version of the article, nor can I determine the creator of that language version. Albert584 (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done as soon as possible is for someone who understands written Chinese to go to the Chinese language version of the article and tell us if sources have been provided there, and if so, inform us whether they are of sufficient quality to merit their inclusion in the English language version.

If it turns out that it is not possible to find the required sources to support a reasonably sized article on Che people, then I am afraid that the AFD discussion will have to be resumed when that fact becomes evident. Albert584 (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to the article itself, maybe it is 'substandard', but, lacking any person with a general interest in that area, you're not likely to find any quick changes in that article. There are several million articles on English wiki, and they all start out as stubs, and eventually, wikipedians come by who have an interest or have knowledge in the area of the article and contribute. I've been here almost 5 years, and there are things that I've started which others have taken up and made better articles. They may be better than when I began them, but by no means perfect. The problem you face Albert, is that you demand instant action and instant results. Most articles are not going to meet your exacting standards simply because the right wikipedians haven't gotten involved yet. You should reconsider why you would take the drastic action of threatening articles with AFD. The approach you've chosen to take is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wiki is a long term project, "Rome wasn't built in a day". Dylanwhs (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selçuk özdemir[edit]

Non-notable autobiography (the main contributor being User:Selcukozdemir) with no sourcing. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Originally was a pure online CV, I csd'd it, and an admin rejected it, inexplicably. I therefore prod'd it, another admin supported the prod. The user removed the prod tags, and did, admittedly, edit it to be less CV-like. Still a totally non-notable person, therefore I csd'd it again. CSD declined for 'procedural reasons' as it was a 2nd. -- Chzz ► 04:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. According to his web page he's an assistant professor with a recent (2005) Ph.D.; although it's possible for someone at that level to already be notable for their academic achievements, it's unusual, and I don't see any signs of it in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--no sign of passing WP:Prof. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF with no WP:RS at all. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:PROF. Much as I hate trying to judge that criterion, in this case it seems rather obvious. --Ged UK 08:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete David Eppstein says it all, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC and will take a while before he gets there. --Crusio (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a vanity article. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Salih (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PROF, WP:BIO, and WP:N straight out. — neuro^(talk) 23:58, 27 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 notability, no external refs, promotional.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcrest Community Pool[edit]

Non-notable community swimming pool. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:47, 26 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 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lu[edit]

Peter Lu is surely no more notable than any post-doc research scientist working in a university. This reads more like a resume--a means for Peter Lu to attain publicity for himself--than a genuinely informative piece on a noteworthy figure. If articles like this are allowed, where do we draw the line? Should any academic who's ever published be entitled to an entry? Blahdrone (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should just point out that there have been a number of accusations leveled on the article Talk page that Lu created this article, when in fact the edit history clearly shows it was created by User:JRSpriggs. And now we have a new user creating an account just to try and get the article deleted, based on more of the same accusations. assume good faith and examine the references, rather than make unfounded accusations of self-promotion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Delete~~. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF ~~or WP:BIO~~. Citation impact is promising, with even a Science piece (co-authored with well-known professor Paul Steinhardt; with only 16 citations in Google Scholar), but some time is still needed to establish notability in my opinion. Has a good chance of attaining notability in the future, but is not yet at that stage.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Meets WP:BIO, as shown by John Z below.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since not enough notability. May I add that claims like "Lu's work with medieval Islamic tilings received substantial worldwide news coverage" need a better reference than the subject's own resume on his employer's website. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notability at present. Perhaps in future this article can be resurrected. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Initially I thought this would be a straight forward case of a non-notable scientist that should be deleted, but after a little hunting I'm confused, and need some advice before making decision -- this is a tricky case. Although Peter Lu is just a regular postdoc, based on his average number and citation level of publications, he does appear to qualify for notability under WP:CREATIVE or WP:ACADEMIC based on his discovery of a “significant new concept”, creation of work that has been the “subject of several independent periodicals” and the “significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources”. Searching with Google identified many mentions of this individual by name, both on academic websites, scienctific[11] and popular press,[12] news[13][14][15] and radio station[16][17] websites. But are these mentions significant enough? Any views? ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 06:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- clearly notable enough, based on the comments listed here! ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (ec) The discovery of ancient Penrose tilings did get a lot of press, quite arguably enough for the notability of a discoverer. This profile, this NPR interview and gnews searches "Peter J. Lu" or "Peter Lu" tiling go toward satisfying WP:BIO and WP:PROF # 7. Lu is clearly much more notable - at least 30-40 or more gnews hits on this Peter Lu - than just "any post-doc research scientist working in a university."John Z (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Z. Postdocs are almost never notable, I guess this is the exception that confirms the rule. Publication and citation record is perhaps not yet up to WP:ACADEMIC, but the third-party coverage is enough to satisfy WP:BIO. The article needs cleanup, though (remarks like "unprecedented success", "landmark paper"). The article history is weird, with quite a lot of vandalism, so the article should be watchlisted by several people after cleanup to keep it in a decent state. --Crusio (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but scrub for WP:Notability in article content. I agree with Crusio. The WP:Academic criteria is on the edge, but WP:BIO seems to be close if not satisfied itself. Putting the two together is a keep for me. The article verges on peacocking right now though, and should be toned down. WP should not be a CV, but it should provide some context for notable individuals. Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notable RS cited above, including NPR, BBC, Chicago Tribune, etc. However, there is some peacockery and I've tagged the article for same.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notability at present. Minor references on a few news websites to scientific discoveries made by some obscure scientist in an obscure field do not (or at least should not) qualify for notability. There may not be enough evidence to suggest this was written by Peter Lu. But it was quite clearly written by someone who knows him (see mention of where he grew up, for instance; this kind of information is not in any of the references). 131.111.243.37 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might I add that mention on news websites does not meet notability requirements in either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. 131.111.243.37 (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but this IP nominated the article for deletion under a different name. The IP address 131.111.243.37 at Cambridge University and Blahdrone appear to be one and the same. If so, this could be construed as engaging in WP:sockpuppetry by attempting to support your own Afd. Or am I mistaken? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please reply at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/131.111.243.37 Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article reads like a C.V but the sources presented here and the references section seems to establish the notability of the subject. --J.Mundo (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is famous work within the subject field. The article shows the notability from the general notice to this even from out of the speciality. A post doc if he makes a notable discovery can be notable. People nowadays tend to stay at that stage for longer and longer periods in some fields. It can even happen to a graduate student, & we have one or two articles here where the student had sufficient attention from the media DGG (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read Peter Lu's article in SCIENCE on Girih tiles and I was impressed. I improved the article on them and corresponded with Peter for a while about that subject. I created an article on him as an extension of the article on Girih tiles. Although I am not currently working on this subject, I see nothing to be gained by deleting this article and making the information about him inaccessible to those who are curious about him. If the article is deleted and he becomes notable in the future, all this work will have to be done over again. (By the way, I am not Peter Lu and had never heard of him before I read his article.) JRSpriggs (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the person is notable. Green Squares (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lu is notable. Besides his extraordinary papers, he has been included in book chapters and given interviews on TV and on radio. There is also no evidence that he edits this page (see editing history). In fact I edit this page once in a while (and some other people have identified themselves as founder/editors of the page). All the information on his wikipedia site are consistent with the information on his website (CV etc). The page should stay at wikipedia. 18.62.15.212 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also think he is notable (publications, media coverage, etc)24.91.152.78 (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 27 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 02:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Love You Breathe (song)[edit]

Was deprodded. The prodding reason was: Single has not charted or otherwise attained notability beyond its inclusion in a released album. Yellowweasel (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Yellowweasel (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As PRODer, this does not meet WP:NSONGS at all. Redirect would be OK as well, I guess, no prejudice to promoting to article if and when the song charts. Or something beyond just existing. §FreeRangeFrog 05:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The current consensus for songs that don't assert notability but are done by notable people is, IIRC, to redirect them to the album page. Firestorm ^Talk 05:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish why it is notable WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the......deprodder? Do I have that right? fuzzy510 (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An IP deprodded it. Yellowweasel (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:27, 27 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. Closing this early because of the attempted outing of the nominator by the article writer. There is a clear consensus anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Johnson (blogger)[edit]

Autobiography of non-notable blogger, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO, though it contains a lot of wikipuffery. (The edit history of the article is also interesting: on February 11, Dcourtneyjohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this edit to Dave Johnson (at the very top, naturally) and created a G12'ed version of the page; on February 12, a "fan", Ny pearl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recreated the page and said he/she would be back; on February 13, Dcourtneyjohnson starts editing the page.) THF (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on there asserts notability; the Huffington Post has hundreds of "featured bloggers" and the organizations and blogs he claims to belong to are also non-notable. The "Commonweal Institute" article was created today. There's nothing here for WP:BIO or anything else. Just a blogger. §FreeRangeFrog 05:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--yet another blogger without real notability. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing adminstrator the article has gone through considerable improvement since the nomination, including 4 external references, including The Hartford Courant and the New York Daily News, and a book on blogging. Ikip (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these passing mentions and WP:PUFF constitute "significant independent coverage," as required by WP:BIO ("trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability"), so my nomination rationale does not change. THF (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Thus far I have four independent sources. Puff is a mere essay, written by THF himself! "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Ikip (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the essay makes a great deal of sense, I for one will be quoting it in future. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notability has been estabilished by at least 4 references. Before deletion, nominator must, according to Wikipedia:Notability "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." This was not done in this case. Nominators first contribution was the AfD to the article, and no indication that he attempted to look for sources. Ikip (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How can anyone say whether or not THF looked for sources? -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 13:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references do not establish the notability of this blogger. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I also don't see how these additional references help establish notability. They are passing mentions at best--two sentences in a book doesn't really add up to in-depth discussion. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Two recently-created SPAs just started editing the article, larding it with cites to blogs. I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcourtneyjohnson. THF (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any evidence that the subject of this bio has been the focus of any articles in reliable sources. --Leivick (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete long on puff, short on RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above rdunn PLIB 09:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipuffery? That's a new one for me, but its an often-seen behaviour here. The article is indeed well-sourced, but I don't see any reliable sources specifically about him, therefore, he fails the notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete only RS refs are en passant, non-notable blogger using wikipedia for self-promotion.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's had plenty of mentions, but nothing really substantial about him directly. He's had mentions in pieces about other things, but he's not been the subject of RS. --Ged UK 13:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being mentioned is NOT the same as being the subject. Wikipuffery indeed: even the photograph attempts to impart fame-by-association to the subject. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Laidler[edit]

This person is does not appear to be notable FlickScully 12:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: As well as winning two awards from the Student Radio Awards series he's been interviewed for a significant government program. He's also done a presentation on the subject, but a student union doesn't really count for "Oh my god this man is so notable I want to widdle myself". Luckily WP:BIO doesn't need that. I also found a news article on the subject, but that unfortunately isn't intellectually independent. Ironholds (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feh, rank inclusionism is afoot! X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm normally on the centre-deletionist side (think of Labour Party as the inclusionists and the Republican Party as the deletionists; I'm about here. Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK eh? Your spelling suggests otherwise! X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Where? I do occasionally slip over the divide. Ironholds (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in the middel I think. ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Anyway, fixed now :P. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the spirit! Now about your rank inclusionist foot . . . . :D X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a rank foot? I showered not an hour ago! Ironholds (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Showered? Any patriotic Brit would have bathed, he would have! X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With a rubber duck, a small model of HMS Ark Royal and a large moustache? That does rather sound like us. Ironholds (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so long as you're not Welsh I think we can overlook the inclusionist thing. As you were Mr Holds, as you were! X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - returning to the subject, any broadcaster can show some press clippings of that kind, but not every broadcaster merits an encyclopedia article. The standards to look at are WP:CREATIVE (for a journalist) and possibly WP:ENTERTAINER (for a presenter); I don't think he qualifies. JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning a student news award does not establish notability. When he has established a career in the regular media, we can have another look at him then. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Capitalistroadster. Not notable yet, and can be recreated if he ever jumps over that bar. THF (talk) 22:56, 27 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. Relisted once, the consensus is clear. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Love College (song)[edit]

A song that I don't believe meets the Notability guideline for songs; has appeared on a few charts and has gotten radio play, but I don't see any other evidence of notability. I contacted the article creator for comment (User talk:Amer10#I Love College) and received no response; likewise, no response to my question at the talk page. A google search appears to turn up nothing but blog entries and music videos (I left some links at the article talk page), and right now the article seems to be a target for vandalism or misinformation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note I Love College is currently a redirect to Asher Roth; I think redirecting this article to Asher Roth would also be appropriate. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Does not meet any of the WP:Notability (music) criteria. WVhybrid (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Let's look at that page again: "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"...Then it goes on to say "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." Since that piece of criteria is met, then it's an automatic keep. Tom Danson (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: that is the notability criterion for an artist, not a song. Roth himself meets the criteria; this single doesn't. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, now let's go to the song criterion; "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." The policy says it's notable enough to be kept, so keep it (Don't know why more users aren't joining) Tom Danson (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, if the discussion result is keep, I suggest the page be moved to I Love College, as there are no other notable items with that name. Tom Danson (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs, it's charted, it's referenced and it is more than a stub. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a charting single, it is notable. Tavix (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as charting single with potential for extension as it is released in other markets. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of expansion? Right now, the article is little more than a mention of where the song charted, which could easily be merged into Asher Roth. According to WP:NSONGS, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album"—as far as I can tell, there's nothing worth saying about this song other than that it was on some charts, and while that may be notable, I feel it's not really worth having a stub on when a redirect to Asher Roth would suffice. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Face it, Rjanagger, it's charted, so it deserves its own article. It's #28 on the Billboard Hot 100-can't get much bigger than that. There are plenty of articles like this, and more press will come when it charts higher. I don't know WHY you're still doing all you can to get it deleted, but the proof is there that it's notable, plus a consensus has been generated, so I'm just waiting for an admin to close the debate and officially declare it to be a Keep. Tom Danson (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Song has charted in the Top 40 on two major US charts and has a couple of sources. Good enough to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the single charted higher on the billboard hot 100 it is now notable because it has basically met the guidelines. Also it's gained media coverage, remixes and the like. Just search on goggle and you find the sources that can cite the claims Raintheone (talk) 21:29, 26 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 02:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Howell Rodham[edit]

Article makes no assertion of notability other than being the mother-in-law of a prominent politician. This is the definition of "notability by association" TM 01:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. She is the mother, not mother-in-law, of one of America's and the world's most well-known political figures, who has been a First Lady, Senator, record-setting if ultimately losing candidate for U.S. President, and Secretary of State. She, and her role in Hillary's upbringing and personal and political formation, have been written about in numerous high-quality sources, as per the References section in the article. She is notable in her own right, and merits an article of this modest size. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What her daughter has done is of no importance here. Her notability is determined on her own merits. What has she done besides raise a famous child?--TM 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about most of the entries in Category:Parents of Presidents of the United States. The parents of certain very famous political figures themselves gain enough fame and importance to merit articles. Although Hillary didn't quite become president, she is at a pretty much equal level of fame with them (check out List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton for how many books have been written about her), and her mother thus falls into the same notability range as presidential mothers. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, read this and this, which will tell you what is incorrect with your argument. Basically, just because other stuff exists (like articles on parents of politicians) doesn't mean that we shouldn't delete this.--TM 01:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assertion that these people were just "stuff". Each of them had lives that were researched and written about by serious authors and scholars, because they became part of the fabric of history. Same situation here. If writers for the New York Times and Washington Post and big name biographers think that her life has been significant, then so can we. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is well sourced and establishes notability for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - are we really discussing this? She is clearly notable in her own right. Many independent and reliable sources assert to this. Esasus (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's not notable in her own right, that bio reads like my grandmother's or any other normal person in this country. The only reason that article exists is because of association, that's it. And that's not being notable in her own right, not in a million years. §FreeRangeFrog 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. Also, multiple WP:RS suggests notability, but does not confirm it. We have to use our judgment and common sense here. It doesn't appear that she has done anything other than raise a notable child. The article is well-sourced, yes, but she hasn't done anything that confers independent notability in my opinion. Firestorm ^Talk 05:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the subject of non-trivial secondary sources, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Just because "notability is not inherited" doesn't mean notable people who are related to other notable people are magically non-notable. Besides, the "not-inherited" clause does call for common sense and in this case, being the parent of one of the most notable US Senators in history not to mention Secretary of State is easily one of those common sense exceptions. --Oakshade (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It might be stretching to call her "the most notable US Senator[] in history", but I agree with the general idea. Shadowjams (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it was a typo. I meant "one of the most..." --Oakshade (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not usually on the "keep" side of things, but this is a well-sourced article that is nicely integrated into Wikipedia. She may not be independently notable without her daughter's achievements, but I don't think that is a good enough argument to delete it. Jvr725 (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither is this. Just sayin' :) §FreeRangeFrog 06:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reason we are aware of her existence is because of her daughter. Prime example of inherited notability. I agree with FreeRangeFrog above, this bio could easily be that of my grandmother. --L. Pistachio (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; Well-sourced article about a person who had great influence over one of our most prominent political figures. No-brainer. Tvoz/talk 08:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inherited, nor is it transmissible back upwards. Never heard of a person notable for being a mother or homemaker; star in an ad, or join in the campaign trail makes her notable? I think not. A merge into/redirect to Hillary Rodham Clinton would be acceptable. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People are interested in the close relatives of major historical figures. The article has been viewed as many as 4,000 times in a single month. Plus, there is enough sourced information here to make a merge unwieldy. Similar articles have survived AFD in the past. (If pressed, I'll provide examples.) Zagalejo^^^ 08:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I agree completely with the variants on the "fabric of the individual" approach. Despite whatever meritocracy we'd prefer, these individuals are notable by virtue of their association, which is in fact different than inherited notability. More on point, she has WP:RS. This might be the basis for an essay: If you have secret service protection you get a wikipedia page (watch someone dig up the precise contours of who has secret service details just to refute me). Shadowjams (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Roger Clinton, Jr., Roger Clinton, Sr.. Shadowjams (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article is well sourced. The American public has decided that relatives of public figures are notable, this is not the place to question that. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine this wasn't about Hilary Clinton for a moment. Lets say this is an article about the mother of Danielle de St. Jorre, former foreign minister of Seychelles. Would you still think she is notable?--TM 14:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was actually something to say about her, then why not? I think you're conflating notability with importance. Notability on Wikipedia is not derived from our own opinions on who is and isn't important. It's derived from the fact that other people have decided to write about someone in reliable sources. Zagalejo^^^ 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not inherited, but there is enough here to satisfy WP:BIO in her own right. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Hilary Rodham Clinton; I agree it's notability by association, but the material should be on Wikipedia in some form. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't a realistic option. That article already has a fairly lengthy description of her upbringing, including a few brief references to her mother; adding all of this material would throw off the balance. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clerk-typist, homemaker and mother. The only references are due to who she is related to. Thus the appropriate place to mention her is in the relative's article. No independent notability. Fails WP:BIO. Notability does not spread to relatives of politicians. Edison (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, it can. Even if it couldn't, and that didn't make people notable, there's enough here in any case. Shadowjams (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A few notes on WP:INHERITED because it's being thrown around incorrectly here. 1 It's not policy, it's part of the arguments to avoid essay. So you can't just cite it and move on. 2 The WP:INHERITED is talking primarily about child-parent articles, not children [people] and parents [people]. At the end it talks about celebrities, but it's a stretch to call the secretary of state a mere celebrity. 3 People are confusing importance or merit with notability. An individual may well be notable by association, without having done anything to deserve it on their own. WP:NOTABILITY is relevant here in the article space. That means the content needs to be limited to the things that make the individual notable. But none of those suggest deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to have misread or misunderstood WP:INHERITED. Assuming good faith, I will not say you are misrepresenting it. WP:INHERITED says "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents." My understanding of this is that for the former First Lady's Mom to have an article, she should have "done something significant and notable in (her) own right" such that she would merit an article even if her daughter and son in law weren't famous. She has only been covered because of her relatives, thus she fails this guideline. Come back when she does something other than be a mother, mother-in-law and grandmother. Maybe she will write a best-selling book or something, other than just be along for the ride. The failure to satisfy WP:BIO is exactly the same as if she were a baby of a celebrity. The press coverage derives from the famous relatives, not from her actions. Edison (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should all assume good faith. When it comes to notability guidelines, the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, and common practice often all diverge, and thus reasonable people can come to quite different conclusions. But I disagree with your equivalence of parents to babies and their being "along for the ride". A lot of Hillary's characteristics and personal traits and "firsts" as a woman are directly attributable to attitudes and teachings and nature of her parents, and her politics ultimately matched her mother more than her father. This is why biographers study parents of presidents and other top-level political figures. Only one in a million of us has what it takes to reach the top of the political pile. How do they get that way? The parents have a lot to do with it. They weren't along for the ride, indeed for many years they were pushing the car. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's assuming good faith here. The mention that it could be otherwise is bizarrely puzzling to me. Because you disagree with an interpretation should not be an opportunity to suggest mal intent.

I actually explicitly mention the celebrity part of the essay. Again, I'm not sure a celebrity, a term usually reserved for entertainers, applies to a secretary of state. However, it's all moot because as my first point also points out (and remains unanswered) the inherited piece quoted from is not policy, it's an essay. Your interpretation of the essay I think is a reasonable one of a few, but it does not answer the other points I made. The most important point is that WP:INHERITED is not official policy like WP:RS or WP:NOTABILITY or WP:OR is. Wasted Time points out the real crux of the issue is on reasonable interpretation and notability concerns, not some heuristic roughly sketched out in an essay. Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable by her mention in WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Although not a wikipedia policy or guideline, a reasonable test for this sort of "inherited" article, I think, is whether many users are likely to look up this individual seeking information about them. Here the answer is, in my opinion, a strong yes....and I say this because I have previously looked up Mrs. Rodham myself on Wikipedia. The WP:INHERITED guideline is a good principle when addressing obscure figures (eg. we do not need an article on Judy Garland's grand-aunt), but this seems to be exactly the sort of situation for which WP:INHERITED should not be imposed dogmatically. Vartanza (talk) 05:05, 28 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 copyvio. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harjit Brar Bajakhana[edit]

Unsupported claims of notability as sportsman;
Unable to find references in Google to support claims;
No validating references in article ttonyb1 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Those references do establish the fact that this guy played a sport professionally with international scope (maybe it's just India-Pakistan, but still). Though the fact that the page was created only after he died is kind of bothersome. But I think we'd need an editor with more knowledge of this to make a call. For all we know this guy had 100 million fans. §FreeRangeFrog 05:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I have to agree with FRF. Unfortunately, the the author has not responded to requests to add references. There may be numerous non-english references that support the article.

Speedy delete this is a blatant copyright violation, and has been so tagged. It seems the editor has previously removed db-bio tag, without explanation. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:42, 26 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 Xfce#Applications. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xfce applications[edit]

Xfce#Applications covers all of the contents of this article that are coverable (with "coverable" meaning "has enough published information to write a short description of the application"). flaming lawyer 21:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a duplicate of the information on Xfce. There isn't even here to make a merge worthwhile; the Xfce page has more text than this one does. I suppose a redirect would be possible, but that would probably be too implausible. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are items on this list that are not covered at the main page. There is no reason they cannot be covered in the main page, so they should be merged there rather than deleted. JulesH (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mousepad (software) seems to be that if (as has been suggested) all the individual Xfce app pages are merged into one, the resulting mass of information would be too big to include in Xfce and that this page would be needed. Cynical (talk) 16:01, 23 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) 01:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as a perfect example of WP:LISTCRUFT. This looks like this was created just to have a list. Tavix (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xfce#Applications for now. When the list is bigger with a couple of paragraphs for each application, breaking it out to its own article can be discussed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:41, 26 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. Mr.Anderson yandman 07:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing with meaning[edit]

Disputed PROD. Unremarkable advertising concept covered only in specialist media. Definition. Unencyclopaedic. 9Nak (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Let's give this article a chance. I think it was created to promote the blog linked to in the external links section which I have removed, but a quick Gsearch indicates it probably has notability as a marketing concept ("marketing with meaning" +-20k hits). I've tagged the article for cleanup and more references. If it is only covered in "specialist media" that does not make it unremarkable, since it has coverage. If the current article is unencyclopedic, that is a problem that can be solved without AfD. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although other sources are available (for example this cnet article), the arguments below, principally WP:NEO, are convincing. Delete. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —9Nak (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with the nominators rationale; being 'convered only in specialist media' has never been a deletion criteria, neither has 'only a definition' (especially when it is obviously much more). However, just finding something on Google does not establish notability either, because only reliable sources can establish notability. The problem with 'marketing with meaning', is that it would presumably be used often as just part of a sentence. I did a search for the term on ProQuest, that searches pretty much what is available of academic journals within business and marketing, and it gave two hits. Both were news (not academic journal hits); the one used the the term as a casual phrase (albeight in the title, but completly unrelated to the subject at hand), while the other was an interview with the owner of the blog site with the same name. It seems that most of the Google hits also are references to this blog site (which would have to establish notability independent of the subject on hand). Reading the article, there is little that makes sence; though the article is not directly untrue, it seems to be mixing parts here and there, and there are non-coherences between sections. I interpret 'marketing with meaning' as a attempt to make a buzzword. It is impossible to access the sources, since they have restricted access. It all seems very WP:OR to me. In the business word, buzzterms like these are twenty a dozen, and until they are established by reliable academic resarch, fail to be notable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both rationales above have merit. Being covered as little as it is in proquest and the internet, this term is unremarkable and possibly constitutes a neologism. The lack of reliable sources that give in-depth information about the topic itself leads it to fail the notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Authors Keep Thank you all for your respectful consideration of the merits of this piece. I will state my case for inclusion: First, I looked up the qualifications for "unremarkable" and this article seems to be remarkable enough. I examined the definition of remarkable for Wikipedia in the notability guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability) and find that this subject and entry satisfies all requirements. Advertising Age covered the concept multiple times. It is the leading publication for marketing professionals around the world. In addition to these points and the specific coverage in Advertising Age, the Marketing With Meaning concept has been covered by Contagious Magazine (subscriber access only available), and has several inbound link and comments from leading marketing professionals. In terms of whether or not this is a concept worth coverage, I would agree with LinguistAtLarge that this is only the start of a potentially very rich discussion. The concept will be the feature of a book that I have written which will be published by McGraw-Hill in October 2009, and it will be included in an upcoming marketing textbook, Kleppner’s Advertising Procedure. On Feb 24th the Marketing With Meaning blog was named the #1 content marketing blog by the independent Junta42 group. Overall, the entire idea of a shift from traditional, interruptive advertising to that of marketing that adds value to people's lives is part of a growing trend within the multi-billion-dollar global advertising and marketing industry, which impacts the daily lives of nearly every citizen in the world. User_talk:Rdgilby

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A marketing buzz phrase which has not been adopted widely, failing WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable neologism. Of course, the aim of advertising and marketing is to persuade the consumer a product or service is 'needed' or 'meaningful', otherwise it ain't advertising. Anyone heard of "Marketing without meaning"? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see in the article, the point here - and very notable position - is for the marketing ITSELF to be meaningful. Traditionally, advertising has been interruptive and unwanted. This idea is to turn the marketing itself into something that people find useful and valuable. User_talk:Rdgilby —Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: a non-notable neologism full of "forward-looking statements", i.e. promotional in tone. Referenced only to Advertising Age, not a general interest publication. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 26 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 02:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Shields Robinson[edit]

This article makes no claim to notability other than being the mother-in-law of a President. I'd nominate for speedy deletion but I possibly see this being contested, so I am taking it here. TM 01:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I would argue that this is stretching notability by association a bit, but then Hillary Clinton's mom also has an article. Subject fails WP:BIO completely, that's for sure. §FreeRangeFrog 01:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Per Tavix below. Not really meant to say "smite her from Wikipedia", I just didn't think of an already existing list where she would fit. No prejudice to promoting to standalone article if she becomes notable for some reason (other than association). §FreeRangeFrog 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well-sourced and subject is notable enough for mine. Will obviously expand as she will have a reasonable amount of media coverage over the next four years. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish the article were a little more developed already, but she's played a significant role in the Obama rise to the presidency, and her moving into the White House definitely makes her noteworthy. Elivera M. Doud is a good precedent for an article of a parallel circumstance. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a public figure herself, resident of the White House~~, parent of two other public figures~~.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this and how notability is not inherited.--TM 02:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair cop; adjusted.--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Family of Barack Obama per past precedents. Almost every member of Barack's family has a section there, and I don't see why his mother-in-law should be any different. Tavix (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tavix. Subject fails WP:BIO on her own, and notability is not inherited, but a mention on the family page is acceptable. Also, in reference to the struck through !vote from FreeRangeFrog above, that article is also up for deletion. Also, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument to keep. Firestorm ^Talk 05:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix's argument to Merge makes sense to me. She is certainly not notable on her own. --L. Pistachio (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama's list of related deletions. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tavix - no independent notability, as it isn't transmissible. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article is sourced. The American public has decided that relatives of public figures and residents of the White House are notable , this is not the place to question that. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the cited New York Times article ("Obama’s Mother-in-Law to Move Into the White House") points out, she's living with the President in the White House, which in itself is pretty notable. -- Shunpiker (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could be inclined to agree that actually moving into the White House with her daughter and son-in-law is probably sufficient notability in and of itself to merit an article, but there really aren't that many sources present in the article that are actually about her. A merge to Family of Barack Obama is sufficient here. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'"Mdfbe"' to Family of Michelle Robinson ObamaI suggest this article be incorporated into Michelle Obama's geneological information. Tumaini Martin Kamaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.17.96 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mother-in-law of the U.S. President, lives in the White House and has been pretty widely reported on. Seems to meet all notability standards.--Sloane (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability does not spread to every relative or inlaw of a politician. There is no "Living in the WH makes you automatically notable" guideline, anymore than living in a European palace automatically makes all relatives and hangers-on notable. Fails WP:BIO. No refs to show notability independently of who Gramma is related to.Give her a mention in the First Lady's article. Edison (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There's also no "notability is entirely established by guidelines" guideline. Or policy, for that matter. It's a fair position to take that a subject of New York Times reporting and a resident of the White House is not notable, but in doing so, you're not using the notability guidelines to make your argument. Neither am I. -- Shunpiker (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you think notability should spread to every relative of a politician or not is completely irrelevant. The case is that Robinson has in fact received heaps of coverage and has become a notable figure. Which is normally on of the the only relevant measure of one's notability we use. --Sloane (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heaps is right: "Meet the first grandmother"; Chicago Sun-Times, November 16, 2008, "Granny diplomacy"; Boston Globe, December 30 2008, even "Obama, una suocera alla Casa Bianca? Si, per le nipotine" (Obama, a mother-in-law at the White House? Yes, for the grandkids); RAI (Italy), November 12, 2008. Establishing notability independently of one's relatives is not a requirement of WP:BIO, and WP:INHERIT advises against using inheritance arguments either to advance or impugn notability. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Is it that you think that hasn't been established? -- Shunpiker (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know what you read, but WP:INHERIT says "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents." My understanding of this is that for the First Lady's Mom to have an article, she should have "done something significant and notable in (her) own right" such that she would merit an article even if her daughter and son in law weren't famous. She has only been covered because of her relatives, thus she fails this guideline. Come back when she does something other than be a mother, mother-in-law and grandmother. Maybe she will write a best-selling book or something, other than just be along for the ride. Mrs. Robinson's "flurry of press coverage" is exactly analogous to that given the baby of a celebrity. Edison (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - When you quote WP:INHERIT to say that the mother of the First Lady ought to have "done something significant and notable in (her) own right," you are quoting the section that pertains specifically to the children of famous people. It may also apply to parents, but it cannot apply to them in the same way, for the reason that the parent-child relationship is not at all symmetrical. The circumstances of being born to a famous parent doesn't in and of itself reflect on an individual. Children rarely have an active role in their parent's achievements, and in the case of a baby born to those who are already notable, no role whatsoever.
      - But the process of parenting a notable individual is not passive and circumstantial. To the extent that parenting plays a role in forming the history and the character of a notable individual, the parent has "done something ... in their own right." Whereas it is rarely arguable that the child shares responsibility for their parents' success, that's not the case for parents. Success or notoriety doesn't erase one's debts to one's parents. To the extent that the individual is the subject of significant personal or biographical study, the notability of the parent's contributions are magnified.
      - Whereas the section of WP:INHERIT that you quoted pertains specifically to children of notable people, where parents are concerned it reads, "parent notability should be established independently." And so it should. And that means (according to the general notability guideline) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
      - The "flurry of press coverage" which attends the birth of a baby to famous parents can't possibly meet that bar. The general notability guideline defines "significant coverage" as sources that "address the subject directly in detail." Articles which contain only the description of an infant don't suffice. But biographical sketches of Marian Shields Robinson which have been cited from multiple reliable sources are "more than trivial," even if they are in some cases, "less than exclusive." There's nothing in WP:INHERIT (which, incidentally, is an essay -- not even a guideline) which impeach those sources or exclude them from establishing the subject's notability. -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before looking at this article at all, I noticed a conundrum: WP:INHERIT is an essay, but WP:Notability (people) links to it to cite that notability is not inherited. I began a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#NOTINHERITED: Essay or guideline? advocating a fairly extensive revision of that guideline to fix this and other problems I perceived with it, and I'd encourage people to comment if they're interested. Mike Serfas (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable based on the ability to write a properly wikified article about her.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, but consider a merge. As I mentioned above, there is some uncertainty in the guidelines here, but the general idea is that the information in this article would undoubtedly be welcome to remain if merged into an article on Michelle Obama, Family of Barack Obama, or a hypothetical Family of Michelle Robinson Obama. The purpose of "articles for deletion" isn't to settle where or whether an article should be merged, so the result from this process should be to keep the article. Mike Serfas (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If George Obama gets his own page why not Marian Robinson. She is actually living in the White House.Therock40756 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep — article is well-referenced, demonstrating notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Harding[edit]

Is not (yet) a notable actor. Appears to have had only minor roles in a handful of movies. I have not seen these films myself, and I welcome input from anyone who has, but what information is available on them does not indicate that any of these roles would satisfy notability criteria for entertainers. Jvr725 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the actor is credited with roles in notable productions is what is required to establish notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. See the current helpful discussion at Sonia Darrin Esasus (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The criteria per WP:ENTERTAINER is not merely that the actor be credited, but "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" (emphasis mine). If only a credit is required, we could just add every listing on IMDb. The Sonia Darrin discussion establishes that she played a memorable part in a film and if someone can say the same for this young man I'd be happy to reconsider. Based on the information relating to his parts in the few productions listed, this does not appear likely.Jvr725 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ENTERTAINER doesn't say anything about being credited or not. The criteria is whether the person has had significant roles, and I don't think "Boy #1" qualifies. --L. Pistachio (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Boy #1 role was the first in his career. I think we should actually focus on his two most recent roles where his name appears on the credits on the film's main page and not buried somewhere in the list. His roles in Praise to the Man and One Man's Treasure appear to be significant, although I can't say for sure without seeing the productions or at least a good synopsis. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further examination of those roles, I still don't think he meets WP:ENTERTAINER. The two films you mentioned appear to be productions of the Mormon church rather than actual feature films. As such, I wouldn't consider them to be major productions (note that neither of the wikilinks you provided actually links to an article about the film). I am still of the opinion that he is not notable. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Pistachio. THF (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD criterion #A7.. So Why 17:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Assembly of Christ[edit]

I don't see any notability per guidlines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A Google search for "United Assembly of Christ" and Chesterfield turns up nothing but this article. I believe this article is a hoax. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My news search shows nothing for "United Assembly of Christ", non news searches lead to a church in Delaware.--kelapstick (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability anywhere Lets drinkTea 00:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CHURCH - it deserves no more than a brief mention in the city's article. flaming lawyer 01:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As that's a failed guideline it isn't suitable to cite in AfD discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the way it looks to me, is that a church member/pastor decided to advertise their church on Wikipedia. That doesn't work. Tavix (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and throw a SNOWball at this one per WP:HOAX or WP:N, depending on whether or not it actually exists. Actually, scratch that, the idea that we can't prove it exists means it fails WP:V. Firestorm ^Talk 05:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator, Sfjmercado (talk · contribs), placed a {{hangon}} tag on the article and wrote on the talk page:

We have a website coming up. Our old one was taken down, however we have a physical address and we are a "REAL" church contrary to belief of some.
Addition:
No promoting is going on here! Its not saying, "HEY! Come join our church!" Rather, it is a display of historical significance, our effect on community, and our significance in the role of this blossoming county. To that which has not been seen here in Virginia as "usual". I completely understood if it was clearly flagrant with nonsense. Just assuming that it is fictitious is not a poor judgment call. I have no one responding intelligently to talk sites, so I have been reconciling the page over and over again in order to get a fair look.

Cunard (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the article. I speedy deleted this article on 24 February per CSD A7 as the article made no claim of notability and didn't provide any sources. Nothing seems to have changed, and it seems likely that the editor will keep recreating the article to promote the church. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant promotion (even if it is for God), but seeing it had been speedied before, better delete it outright through AfD, and liberally season with sodium chloride. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a organization that doesn't assert notability and has so far proven to be unverifiable. I'd like to remind the author that promotion can be done without trying to convert people. Merely saying a place exists when someone wouldn't otherwise have known is promotion too. But that's not relevant the article already fails two basic criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable church, unverifiable, tastes like spam, previously deleted with no changes, WP:SNOW, etc... tagged as a textbook A7 and borderline G11Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:31, 26 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) 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siddaroda[edit]

~~Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siddharudh Swami. Subject is still non-notable and there are no reliable sources stating otherwise. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw nomination per comments by Abecedare and Phil Bridger. Arguements for a recreation of the deleted article (in another name) merit a Keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Siddharudha Swami. Subject was a very well-known religious figure and teacher of Swami Ramdas (he persuaded Ramdas to reenter non-ascetic life) and Muktananda (he gave Muktananda that name). Hubli, at one time, was chiefly known for his Siddharoodha Matha, which was visited by people all over (present day) Maharashtra-Karnataka,[18] including Lokmanya Tilak in 1919 and Mahatma Gandhi in 1924. [19] Plenty of hits on Google books, some of which represent devotee literature and need to be used with care. Also note the several variants in transliteration, including Siddharudh/Siddharudha/Siddaroda/Siddharoodha + Swami/Swamy, which makes searching for sources difficult. Article needs to be referenced and cleaned of hyperbole and peacockery, but notability is easily established. Abecedare (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not seem to me to be sufficient that we state that sources exist that prove notability they need to be provided. If an interested editor comes along and provides those sources in the article then I'll change my vote. I also see no problem deleting the article and then later recreating with reliable sources.TheRingess (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up as per Abecedare. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abecedare has demonstrated that sources exist. In response to TheRingess's comment above, they have been provided, just click on the links above. If you want references to them to be in the article then you are just as capable of putting them there as anyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Nom changed vote to Keep per arguements above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:48, 28 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Quest Enterprises, Inc.[edit]

PROD removed. No evidence of notability. I was unable to find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Mosmof (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG on range of source material available and, as non-profit, fails on lack of any significant level of operation.MarquisCostello (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is listed on a site which it found noteable enough to be in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APreciousF (talk • contribs) 08:11, February 21, 2009 — APreciousF (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog 01:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CARP - whoops, I mean WP:CORP. flaming lawyer 02:21, 26 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.

Please note that four of these editors EastHills, A-Kartoffel, JoannaMinogue, JamesBurns are the same person, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Ikip (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer Rising (album)[edit]

Unauthorised bootleg album which contains a substantial amount of original research WP:OR and questionable claims. Unreferenced and unverifiable. Fake sources. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Lucifer Rising (film). This is an interesting footnote to the film's history, so it doesn't deserve to be deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The problem with a merger is that 1) It's not the film's official soundtrack, it's an unauthorised bootleg 2) the article makes unsubstantiated claims and original research. A-Kartoffel (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a historical footnote relating to the film's production. Information on the Kenneth Anger-Jimmy Page relationship is online and can be referenced for the article. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Original research. It's not even an album - it's a demo-quality bootleg EP (entire bootleg consists of just one drone lasting 20 minutes). If anything, the article should be deleted and replaced with the official soundtrack by Bobby Beausoleil. At least his album is official, had a tracklist, and is used on the film. JamesBurns (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - few independent good sources; mostly blogs, WP:OR. EastHills (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no verifiable reliable sources, original research. JoannaMinogue (talk) 01:09, 28 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 01:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiana Jones[edit]

Contested Prod. Seems not to meet the notability criteria in WP:PORNBIO. Awards are listed but the link does not say anything about awards. If they exist they are unlikely to be major ones conferring notability. DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability and third party sources. --Artene50 (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I researched this on Google and also deem it unnotable Lets drinkTea 01:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I researched this on Google and I find it interesting... but it still fails the notability guidelines for porn actors as far as I can see. §FreeRangeFrog 01:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO standards. 7triton7 (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FROG (mobile homepage)[edit]

Fails criterion #1 of WP:WEB. The sources given are all either trivial or unreliable. They all read like press releases. There is no indication that this website is important at all. --- RockMFR 22:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Letsdrinktea (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the coverage refs establish notability. Certainly a few WP:RS there. And I'm not just saying that. §FreeRangeFrog 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out the non-trivial reliable sources that are used? --- RockMFR 02:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SymbianGuru and PocketPC Mag. §FreeRangeFrog 02:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SymbianGuru link is a 404. PocketPC Mag is a blog which doesn't seem to have any editorial standards or review. Correct me if I'm wrong. --- RockMFR 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you scared me. I thought SymbianGuru was gone or something. Well, if the article there is gone or didn't exist, then that does it for that ref. As to the notability of PPM, I consider them to be notable and trustworthy, unless you can point me to a place on Wikipedia where it says I'm not supposed to consider them a good source. §FreeRangeFrog 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, MobileCrunch is also notable. I didn't notice it before. It's part of the TechCrunch network. §FreeRangeFrog 04:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if a website is notable. It matters if they are reliable. --- RockMFR 17:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does seem to fail WP:WEB and the quality of the article is questionable (reads like an ad). -- samj _in ^out 02:42, 26 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anett Wockenfuss[edit]

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. No assertion of notability in the article and the Fashion Model Directory doesn't show much that would establish it. Only third-party ref is trivial coverage that doesn't even say anything about her being a model. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete aside from the Dubai press release popping up over and over again, the only news-ish coverage I can find is this, which does little more than mention her name...not sure if that's the ref you're talking about or not. Seems like this might be a little ONEEVENTy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed that article in my search, but it does the same telling thing as the Dubai press release: not mention her as a model, which would be a very odd thing to fail to mention if she was notable for it. Beyond that, having won a derby's "best dressed" honor is so NN it's more like NO-EVENTy to me. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are a media release and an article in the Melbourne Age stating that she had won "Fashions in the Fields in 2004. The article states " A few went in for a dare, or they were nudged, like Anett Wockenfuss of Carlton. "My boyfriend said, 'You look so good, now we're here, you might as well go in Fashions on the Field.' " Wockenfuss won it."[20]. This is not enough to establish notability for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article says melbourne cup but source is dated 27-march-2005 and says yesterday, the cup has never been run outside of November 1 - 13 period, the source quoted in this discussion say derby day, even so that doesnt make the person notable as per WP:NOTNEWS, thats the only assertion of notability on the article. Gnan garra 01:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a model, her notability is assessed against WP:ENTERTAINER, which she fails to meet. WWGB (talk) 02:43, 26 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Littley[edit]

Unnotable Singer, whose sole claim to fame is a single cover song. Several pages of google search only give myspace, facebook, youtube pages and her website, neither are reliable sources (her website doesn't seem to mention this song at all). Although the original song covered and the series it was attached too are notable, this does not make the artist of a cover version notable. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.
Comment I apologize if this AfD hasn't been filled properly, Twinkle made a right mess of it due to a bug. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any good sources on Google to indicate notability Lets drinkTea 00:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News and Google News Archive can find no references to her at all. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Might squeak through one of the WP:MUSIC criteria, but as this stands it's about a singer who no longer sings, whose contributions were unremarkable to begin with and is sitting here with an unsourced BLP. §FreeRangeFrog 01:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that she squeaks through the WP:MUSIC criteria. It is not relevant whether or not a singer stills sings, her contribution was notable. Esasus (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with that being the fact that the only reference is a YouTube video of the credits, where, as the article says, she's credited only as "Claire". So that could be my cousin Claire Cherrypickermosh from Wyoming, or Claire Bananasplit from Nowhere, Kansas. I appreciate your zeal in trying to keep all these articles from being deleted, but may I suggest a WP:RS refresher? Or, of course, additional sources are always welcome. §FreeRangeFrog 04:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for utter lack of notability. Frog, your cousin sounds very attractive. Can she sing? Drmies (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No! She fails WP:MUSIC but would probably pass the inclusion guidelines for cherry pickers... if they existed :) §FreeRangeFrog 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, and not even a 'one-hit wonder'. WP is not myspace Ohconfucius (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not even meet the ludicrously minimal standards of WP:MUSIC. THF (talk) 22:55, 27 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 01:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Higgins[edit]

Article about political blogger fails to show his passing WP:BIO as every cited reference except one is not from a reliable source independent of him... and the one bbc.com citation is an article written by Higgins. While the article mentions being interviewed by Rush Limbaugh on his program "for 40 minutes" (no citation/coverage by a reliable source), not all such interviewees of Rush garner independent coverage in reliable sources, meaning that such incidences do not mean an automatic qualification for WP:BIO. B.Wind (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The purpose of that BBC feature was precisely to represent the views of ordinary, unremarkable voters; it could not confer notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable blogger. Agree with Gonzonoir, that BBC article hardly helps. Fails WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog
Delete per nom and Gonzonoir. THF (talk) 23:32, 27 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 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maristella Patuzzi[edit]

I do not believe Patuzzi has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", hence I think the article does not meet WP:N. I then looked at WP:MUSIC. Examining the criteria, the only part of it I felt could confer sufficient notability upon Patuzzi was "Has won or placed in a major music competition." The article lists several competitions she was won. However, I performed a Goggle search on each one: "Lorenzo Perosi of Biella National Competition" (No Ghits); "Fermo International Competition" (4 Ghits); "International Tournament of Music in Rome" (6 Ghits); "Vittorio Veneto National Competition" (9 Ghits); "Bruno Zanella prize" (4 Ghits). Though I think major is a subjective term, I do not think these competitions can be considered major based on the Ghits; I suspect the identification of "national" and "international" for some of them is misleading in terms of notability. I contacted the creator of the article 11 days ago to help address the problem of notability I perceive, [21] but I received no response. Allventon (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom, very few hits on those referenced "awards". This might be a hoax. §FreeRangeFrog 01:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the person seems to exist, but to clarify my comment, I can't find valid references to those awards and prizes. This is a bit weird. §FreeRangeFrog 01:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 05:49, 26 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 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Washahi[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:BIO; Google only turns up 539 hits, and no significant news coverage on this person, mainly just blogs on his group's website. FingersOnRoids 02:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's minimal coverage, and that coverage fails RS. Failure of RS means failure of N, and thus the subject does not meet the standards for inclusion on WP. MSJapan (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MSJapan's explanation. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:40, 27 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 These Girls. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin C. Berry[edit]

I don't see how this actor meets WP:BIO. Additional input would be appreciated. Thanks, brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to These Girls; role in that movie is the only claim even approaching encyclopedic notability. Redirects are cheap. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'd be okay with deleting, but I guess a redirect serves a purpose and preserves the history in case notable achievements are done in the future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he's a legitimate actor with acting credits in films and has upcoming projects. The article has references and has a decent amount of content within it. I see no reason in deleting it. musimax. (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are independent, reliable sources and he fails WP:ENTERTAINER: only one (at most) significant role in a notable film. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I'm not seeing much about this guy in terms of sources. Tavix (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect While there clearly isn't enough content for a separate article, I can see the use of pointing people to his only notable work with a redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 26 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.

^ http://motleymoose.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=120

[1] ttp://motleymoose.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=120

[1]