Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 February 1 March >

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 Speedy keep. There's no way in hell that Pikachu, the clearly notable series mascot, is going to get deleted. Ditto, in descending order of certainty, Mewtwo, Jigglypuff, Mew, and Bulbasaur. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pikachu[edit]

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

These five seperate articles on Pokemon are redundant because condensed lists of Pokemon already exist and the information can be found there. ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are also Pokemon with their own unneeded pages:

Mewtwo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bulbasaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jigglypuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mew (Pokémon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Speedy keep - I echo Belasted here. Have you read the list entry for Pikachu? It is just a few sentences of in-universe information. The main article is a GA and contains a lot of real-world information and verifiable sources. If you nominate the other articles, I will echo my response there (except for Jigglypuff). Artichoker[talk] 23:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Pikachu, neutral to weak keep for the rest. The last thing we want is an article on each individual type of Pokemon but Pikachu is the main one. It is a key character in the TV Series (appearing in every episode, as far as I know) and has been used extensively for merchandising. It is easily notable and deserves coverage extensive enough to justify its own article. I don't feel quite so strongly about the others but they are referenced articles that in no way scream "delete me" to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:57, 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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_9#Longest_word_in_Turkish_.28closed.29. — Aitias // discussion 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longest word in Turkish[edit]

Longest word in Turkish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced. I don't speak Turkish so I'm not sure if this is a hoax or not. Can someone who is Turkish help us out? Thanks. Cssiitcic (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found two fine sources: [1] [2] But I do not know how to add sources in English Wikipedia.--Cfsenel (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added those sources in the article.Cssiitcic (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seem someone else did before I got a chance to. OOPS.Cssiitcic (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. I made it. I have copied References part from Longest word in Spanish and learned how to add sources (before you).--Cfsenel (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are a couple of thousand Ghits for "Muvaffakiyetsizleştiricileştiriveremeyebileceklerimizdenmişsinizcesine", which, according to the article, is the longest word in Turkish. Maybe we need a List of longest words by language or something and merge this into it. Then we can also touch on the longest word in many languages. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might be systemic bias writing. Is there any reason to believe that linguists, professional and hobbyist, have not studied other languages such as Turkish to any less depth in this area than they have studied the subject of the longest word in English? We could mention "çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmısınız" as well here, for starters.

      On the other hand, a parent article on longest words would not be amiss. Compare some of the other articles in Category:Superlatives. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The longest word in Turkish may belong on the Turkish Wiki, or conversely, we could have a Longest Word in Each Language-type article. But there is no real point I see in having a longest-word article for an individual world langusge on the English wiki. Eauhomme (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- We have an article about he longest word in Spanish. I'm starting an AfD on that, since we are thinking about deleting this.Cssiitcic (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- If an article which includes longest words of all the languages, this can be deleted then. But until then, keep.--Cfsenel (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears to be real, and might be useful to our users. Wikipedia is not running out of space; we are not a printed set of books. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep virtually anything of record-breaking reknown seems to be notable around here; this too. And yes, we can have 6000 more of these for each other language (including Klingon, if sourced). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This content is not suitable for an encyclopedia. (Apply liberally to other "Longest word in ___" articles.) -Atmoz (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Turkish language or rename to word itself. This article is an unnecessary fragment and definitely unsuited for inclusions as a seperate entry. ∴ here…♠ 03:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just want to make sure it's clear I recommend keeping this article, since I wasn't very explicit above. After keeping, a merge with the language or with a "longest words" article can be discussed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I would not object to merging into Longest words, and splitting out when and if enough reliable source material is found to make this more like Longest word in English. DHowell (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Turkish language per here. It would make more sense if it was there, since it covers the language and possibly the list of words. Versus22 talk 08:46, 5 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 merge and redirect. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ripcurl[edit]

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

Although "Rip Curl" is a well-known company of surfing clothes and accessoires, I cannot find the term "ripcurl" or "rip curl" (in the way as indicated in surf jargon in the article) anywhere, besides a dictionary entry in MSN Encarta. So it appears to be at best either a neologism or a dictionary word. Crowsnest (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before information can be merged, it first has to be established by reliable sources. Apart from the MSN Encarta dictionary entry (of which I do not know the reliability), I have not been able to find anything. Including such a single mention into other articles would give it undue weight, to my opinion. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Encyclopedia of Surfing" by Matt Warshaw, on page 508 the writer directly quotes the cofounder of the company "Rip Curl", who states that "rip curl" does not mean anything. So while the company and brand name "Rip Curl" is notable, the term "rip curl" seems not. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a quote, on the origin of the name "Rip Curl" from the "Encyclopedia of Surfing", to the Rip Curl company article. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator of this AfD, I support the idea of a redirect. -- Crowsnest (talk) 15:34, 5 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 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dope Stars Inc.[edit]

Dope Stars Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Old article which still remains devoid of verifiability, on band with no evidence of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no widespread coverage. Nothing of independent note on Google WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article makes claims of notability, such as being part of the SAW 4 soundtrack. Also, at the time of nomination, the article didn't have maintenance tags in it's recent history (e.g. past month) - while this isn't a reason to keep the article, a deletion request should generally appear soon after the maintenance tags were removed in order for it to be properly corrected. --Sigma 7 (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It appears the article may have been a previous AfD that was kept. this is the code on the page. {{oldafdfull|page=Dope Stars Inc.|date=23 February 2009|result='''keep'''}} Also, there is a unreferenced tag, no need for a refimprove or citations tag. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the first AfD for this article that I can see. The code you mentioned is actually generated by {{afd1}} tag itself. The date is the date of the posting of the AfD, not the date of any closing. The lack of apparent maintenance tags is only a side issue here as editing of the nominated article is permitted (except for renaming or redirecting) while the AfD continues. B.Wind (talk) 18:53, 27 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 22:01, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Us Now[edit]

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

Film not yet released, has only received trivial mention in a blog and online column. Fails WP:N and WP:MOVIE. Creator and main contributor seem to be spamming other (related) articles with mention of this film; seems like promotional campaign. ZimZalaBim talk 21:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. While I'm not a fan of the spam campaign, the film might be notable. The "online column" reference is the Financial Times. While it's only two paragraphs, the FT does mention that the film will appear at the London International Documentary Film Festival. The blog reference is Fourdocs, a blog put out by Channel 4. That particular blog has the air of one that is professionally written and edited, so I'll give it a bit more weight that I would the average blog. (I don't put much stock in the book reference in the article, as Lulu is a well-know vanity self publisher.) Gsearch does have noise problems, but this did look a bit promising. Eye blog appears to be another professionally edited blog, this one by the print magazine Eye.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello All:

I'm new to Wikipedia (as far as contribution goes) and am trying to make this page as compliant as possible with the wiki policy. As has been mentioned, the film has been reviewed in the Financial Times as well as by Channel 4, the Sheffield Doc fest (one of the biggest in the world) and a number of leading political thinkers. Please find a sample of the reviews here: http://blog.usnowfilm.com/2008/12/film-reviews/ Us Now has also been screened in London at the Royal Society for the Arts, all over Canada to more than 5000 people and Oslo, Paris, Washington, Haifa (Israel) etc... Is this not enough as far as notability goes? :) I would appreciate if you could give me a few tips in order to overcome the prospect of having this page deleted. Thanks! Halfamatan (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice for recreation when notability is demonstrated. The FT article is a small piece on the film. The Channel4 site solicits films, so the editorial process is unclear. Basing notability on these sources is insufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, already bordering notable before release indicates likely notability after release. Leave alone until clearly unnotable 1 year following release and actively discourage any excessive external or cross linking. ∴ here…♠ 04:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we don't keep stuff because it might become notable in a year. If it does, then there is ample reason to create the article then. -- Whpq (talk) 04:08, 5 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 A7 of the CSD. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Dodgers[edit]

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

Defunct amateur baseball team fails notability. JaGatalk 21:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a CSD tag on the article. No votes to keep.Cssiitcic (talk) 21:24, 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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Hurricanes[edit]

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

Defunct amateur baseball team fails notability. JaGatalk 21:46, 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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Warped[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable product --EEMIV (talk) 21:34, 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. As whpq says, "no prejudice against recreation when they pass from up and coming to arrived and notable" yandman 10:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moutheater[edit]

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. The article lists a number of references, however:

  • #1: appears to be a small-time web magazine
  • #2 & #3: blog
  • #4 - #6: TCC Times = (local) Tidewater Community College student paper
  • #7: appears to be a small-time local publication
  • #8: blog
  • #9: domain consists of a for-sale sign (if it ever existed).

Furthermore, "Thrashed Records" [3], their label, seems to be hosted by a larger "self-publishing"-type co., BigCartel [4] which "helps you create a shop to sell your goods online with as little fuss as possible." In short, these guys seem to not have breached the "local bubble" yet. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article seems to be timed to promote their forthcoming record. No RS references so I went Googling. I am seeing a lot of non-RS coverage in Google but nothing RS on the first few pages or in Google News. The fact that they recorded with Steve Albini in 2007 (which would normally get you some coverage) and still made no mark seems to mark them out as moribund. Sure, they might prove me wrong, but they shouldn't have an article until they do. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a good argument is put forward as to why any of the references are independent reliable sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - there is some evidence that they meet WP:MUSIC due to touring much of North America. I think this one can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to WP:MUSIC (the current version, at least), there needs to be non-trivial coverage in a reliable source regarding said touring... comes down to WP:V, really, as most do... --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All sources are inadequate. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New references have been posted. One of which is a published magazine article in Sound magazine. Moutheater is featured on the cover of this issue and has a multiple page feature article in the issue. Sound is a distributed hard copy magazine not a "small time webzine" as is posted above. Amvymra (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This [5] Sound magazine? The one that seems to only have 1 issue thus far? And no indication of being a print magazine? Or am I missing something? --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agreed, no RS and thus fail notability. --StormRider 03:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The band's label is being referenced when saying they haven't "breached the local bubble" when their label is based in Nashville TN, many miles away from the band. Also if you're to google "Moutheater Steve Albini" multiple websites come up verifying this claim. Sound is new publication that has 2 issues in print. They are a branch off of the long running Portfolio Weekly magazine. Amvymra (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One !vote per customer please. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Also I'd like to add that the "article" in question is in fact a stub (which is meant for building off of). Not a full blown Wikipedia article. Amvymra (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above regarding the label, I covered that. Also there's no need for you to repeat "keep" over and over. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band's label having a hosted online store really has nothing to do with their notability. I was just pointing out that while you say they haven't "breached the local bubble". They've obviously drawn some attention from people in other areas. Amvymra (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no reliable 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - they appear to be an up and coming band, but a bunch of blogspot based reviews don't establish notability. This leaves only a single magazine article from a local publication to support notability. That's not enough, but no prejudice against recreation when they pass from up and coming to arrived and notable. -- Whpq (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're saying that there's only "a single magazine article" when in fact there are four. Two in different issues of Sound, one in the TCC Times and one in Portfolio Weekly. I believe this makes them notable. Amvymra (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: You're right about there being two articles from Sound. That makes two articles in a local publication. TCC is a student magazine from a college and doesn't make the cut for a reliable source for establishing notability, and Portfolio weekly is a brief mention. Taking all of this into consideration, my opinion still remains that they don't quote establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the full paragraph in Portfolio is a lot more than a "brief mention".Amvymra (talk) 01:36, 5 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. yandman 10:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macho Harris[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete see WP:ATH and WP:BIO. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh good grief, he's obviously notable. It's pretty universally agreed that he will be a second round pick in this April's NFL draft. He was first team all ACC his senior year [6]. There are a gracious plenty secondary sources to demonstrate notability [7]. --B (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sources are just one aspect of notability, and with sport much of those sources are simply gamenotes and recaps. In all the other college and amatuer sports players are generally not notable even if they are expected to go high in the drafts of their sports. BUT since the NFL draft is comming up, it might be easier to keep the article. If he is expected to go so high in the draft then it should be noted and sourced in the article (as an explaination of notablility).--Bhockey10 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of them are game recaps??? On the list of Google news stories I linked above, NOT A SINGLE HIT on the first two pages is a game recap. [8], [9], [10], and [11] - the first four hits from that results list - are all articles about Macho Harris himself, not about the team, not about a game, but about the player personally. Those alone are more than sufficient and you've got 50 pages more of the same. --B (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) There's a few on page two, most are local articles, others are columns blogs are articles about the team that mention Harris and/or quote him on a game. 2) Just because he's a big player at the school and local area doesn't mean he's internationally notable on wikipedia. If the top players on every college team had articles there would be 1000s of articles of good college players but non-notable elsewhere. It's pretty much been consensus in past AfDs that college athletes and college football players are generally not notable until turning pro (at the very least until they are drafted). 3) All of the other college sports delete articles on players, even the top prospect players. Players like this could go high in the draft or (I've seen some articles where he's not even in the top 10, all that falls under speculation i.e. WP:NOTCRYSTAL.--Bhockey10 (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Virginian Pilot is on the complete opposite side of the state. The Richmond Times Dispatch is a completely different market and about a 3+ hour drive up I-81 and over I-64. ESPN is national. The only local ones I see are WSLS and the Roanoke Times. The Washington Post (Washington DC is a good 5 hour drive from Blacksburg, depending on how bad I-66 is) did a profile on him [12]. The only consensus in past AFDs is that college players who do not meet the general notability criterion are not notable. College players who do meet it (ie, there are multiple reliable sources of information about them independent of the source) are notable. As for other college sports - they don't really matter. There are two college sports where every game is the subject of multiple articles, virtually every game is televised, and a substantial number of players are profiled in the news: college football and college basketball. Only in extremely rare cases would a college athlete from another sport be notable ... but for football and basketball, well-known starters at major schools are going to blow away our notability criterion and are probably more notable than professional athletes in other American sports. --B (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • By the way, I'll let you in on a secret page - User:B/NCAA data. This page contains a list of pages that link to {{Infobox NCAA Athlete}} or {{Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer}}. Substantially all of them are (or were, as of the creation of the list) college athletes. I occasionally update the list and patrol the pages therein for vandalism, puffery, and articles about somebody's non-notable 4th string kicker who is hoping that he will make the dress squad sometime in a couple of years. --B (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not saying you're not good and editing or finding non-notable athletes. That list is bad! should change the name to list of non-notable and marginally notable athletes I just don't think players should be notable because of their sport. Harris looks like a good player but has he won any national awards, been in a major play in a bowl game, changed how college football is played, etc...What makes this good player notable amoung the many good college players. --Bhockey10 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • A player who sets foot on an MLB baseball field and plays 30 seconds of one game is considered notable and it isn't even a subject for debate - MLB is the highest level of professional baseball and so someone who plays it is inherently notable according to our definitions. On the other hand, college football is the second most popular American sport behind the NFL in terms of TV ratings. Ratings for the top college bowls beat the World Series television ratings and it isn't even close. For regular season games, it's even more of a blowout. A college football player like Harris, who is profiled in multiple media outlets and is a star player is not "marginally notable". I'm not interested in having articles about every single player, but a star player for a BCS team ought to be included. --B (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We'll the 30 second senario would be an interesting AfD debate, Looking at many of the sources for Macho Harris only a couple are ESPN, and most are media markets within a few hrs of VT. Like I've said players should NOT be notable because of their sport. What makes this good player notable amoung the many good college players? the answer to that is nothing, he's not a heisman winner, hasn't changed football, and probably won't be remembered for his college playing time in a few years.--Bhockey10 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "players should be not notable because of their sport". Fine. College football is more notable than major league baseball, major league soccer, etc, so I would say Harris meets that qualification as well. As for the sources ... "only a couple are ESPN"? So? Even if you ignore everything else, just ESPN sources are more than sufficient to establish notability. [13][14][15][16][17]. There's also an article the NYT's Herald Tribune on him - [18]. The standard is significant coverage independent of the subject. Even the Roanoke media (45 minutes away) meets that standard. The standard isn't, "newspapers on the other side of the planet regularly cover him". Other regional media outlets have profiled him. National media outlets (Washington Post, New York Times, ESPN) have profiled him. By any conceivable standard, this player is notable. --B (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The one article from NY is about him in a fire, ok let's give everyone who got burned an article too. a couple of those ESPN sources are articles, yes, but some are blogs, and opionion columns- not reliable sources. --Bhockey10 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Well, if the New York Times considers a fire in Virginia significant enough to have an article about, then maybe there should be an article about it. Chances are, they aren't going to do a profile on a non-notable burn victim from Virginia. Your demand for sources is a ludicrous moving target. There are over 500 hits in google news for his name. That should tell you something right there. Throw out the local ones, throw out the regional ones (both of which are actually acceptable sources, but we're throwing them out anyway), throw out the blogs (which, by the way, an ESPN blog is a reliable source - Some random Joe Sixpack's blog is not, but an ESPN blog is peer reviewed and meets our standards), throw out the New York Times article because you don't consider it important, and there's still plenty left. --B (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. College American footballer doesn't confer notability in itself, but public interest from the professional sport certainly does. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't need the WP:ATH presumption, notability easily established. Townlake (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- meets WP:GNG per the sources dug up by B. It doesn't matter if he meets additional criteria if he meets GNG. ESPN and the Washington Post are VERY clear examples of independent, third party sources. SMSpivey (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added those sources found by B to the article.SMSpivey (talk) 18:48, 4 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. Good rename yandman 10:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian parliamentary election, 2009[edit]

Latvian parliamentary election, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No such election is confirmed and therefore the article is pure speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --SpeedKing (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll call it "Next Latvian parliamentary election" for now, then. Just moved it; not speculation any more now. —Nightstallion 19:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, this article would become unnecessary if there wouldn't be any early elections until 2010. Some of this information might be added to a new article about the economic/political crisis of Latvia, however, an article about a possible (not a definite) election doesn't fit in Wikipedia. --SpeedKing (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There definitely will be an election in Latvia by 2010, so this article should by definition exists. Due to the strong possibility that it may be held earlier due to the financial crisis, the article about the next election currently includes information about this issue, but it's encyclopedic either way. —Nightstallion 20:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The next general election of a country is highly notable whether or not it is due to take place this year. However, a lot of the article seems to be subjective or opinion, so it will need serious attention to meet standards of verifiability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I write lots of articles on future elections, and usually (as in this case, too) try to have every sentence sources, so no worries there. ;) —Nightstallion 22:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per possible WP:CBALL. But feel free to revive it if this election does materialise. --Artene50 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This election is a fact, the only question is whether 2009 or 2010 -- as I've changed the article title to reflect the still-open question of in which year it will take place, I don't see how CRYSTAL applies. —Nightstallion 02:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, BTW. —Nightstallion 15:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is likely/probable/well-soucred, so not pure speculation prohibited by WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 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. Contrary to his colleague Macho Harris, non notable yandman 10:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Allen[edit]

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

not notable per WP:ATH, just a regular college athlete nothing special or notable to be on wikipedia. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:38, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MojoMojo[edit]

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

Non-notable software, references consist of non-reliable sources. --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as notability is not established. --Boston (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All references covering MojoMojo are self-published, and therefore do not count towards notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. If the software is available (particularly if open-source) and usable, then the entry is useful in that it contributes to the completeness of the Wikipedia reviews, and it helps anyone looking for wiki software by providing an evaluation (even if limited). If the software has any new features or a novel grouping of features (as it claims), then retaining the reference to it is useful, and even if the software is not 'notable' for its wide adoption, drawing attention to the novel features may prompt their take-up by other open source products. --Bobhare (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC) — Bobhare (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • You probably need a better argument that "It's WP:USEFUL". Indiscriminate collection of articles on every single obscure musician / society / publication / computer programme might seem "useful" until, but once you consider how prone these articles are to spam, vandalism and inaccurate information that goes unchecked, it's not so useful. There's only a finite number of people on Wikipedia who keep software articles in check, and they only have time to keep an eye on a finite number of articles. The rules on Notability are here for a good reason, and if you're looking for a directory of every open-source application, Wikipedia is not the site you want. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Full disclosure: I am one of the developers and I do keep an eye on this article for spam, vandalism, and accurate information. Dandv (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough for disclosing that, but I can't imagine Wikipedia ever reconsidering its notability policy because someone connected with article promises to keep an eye on it, especially not if the vast majority of COI articles are anything to go by. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. MojoMojo is listed in Comparison of wiki software, at AppliedStacks and at WikiMatrix. Dandv (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but other Wikipedia articles never count towards notability, and the other two websites appear to be sites which covers all software of this kind. However, to answer the original objection, the Wikimatrix page appears to be the place for people to go for the list of features rather than Wikipedia. There might be a case for putting a link to Wikimatrix in the Comparison of wiki software article if there isn't one already. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete MojoMojo is one of the most advanced if not the most advanced wiki in the perl language. It also has one of the most flexible and capable authorization layers of any wiki software, allowing control over both editing and viewing. This is an important feature of any wiki and the MojoMojo article should be there if for no other reason than to describe that. I use mojomojo over other wiki software for my business for exactly that reason, I can control who can see and who can edit everything.User:jayk806 —Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC). — jayk806 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • This is the first time I've felt compelled enough to bother with signing up. Now that I've gone through the process I'll be editing other entries, I'm sure. User:jayk806 —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • In the case of open-source software, I think that the addition of WP:SPA tags to contributors is gratuitous. These persons simply work on creating software, not on editing Wikipedia randomly. Please see Raw Thought: Who Writes Wikipedia?:
-- dandv (talk • contribs)
  • Sure, articles can grow when they may just be missing reliable sources, but an article fails WP:V when such sources don't exist (or don't exist yet). --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no reliable sources covering this software. The references provided in the article are self-published. A search turns up none. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm always willing to be swayed by cogent arguments. Can you point out which are these new references? -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's the new three at the top of the page, none of them appear to mention MojomMojo. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I believe those are what are being referred to, but I'm asking the question because as you note, they don't event mention MojoMojo. That shouldn't be surpising as those documents all predate the start of the MojoMojo project. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed 1, 2 and 3. I guess I didn't realize I needed to take references defined as such. Those three entries are more properly citations of material that has influenced the creation MojoMojo. I'm willing to act on constructive criticism to bring the article up to standard, but I'm not sure that this article should be deleted simply because there are no reliable articles that mention MojoMojo. That's a bit of a catch 22. In addition, I would argue vehemently that CPAN (ref 5) is a reliable source. -- Mxhunter (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no Catch-22. Reliable sources covering the subject would establish notability. So if you can find articles written about MojoMojo, we have a start. Item (5) is not a reliable source. It's a change log. All it represents is some evidence that somebody is using it which not what is at issue. -- Whpq (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a difference of reliable source interpretation then. I feel, every bit about this article can be verified through reliable sources. I am not referring to the just the Changes log on CPAN, but CPAN itself and the fact that one has full access to the code to verify that the content is factual. If there is any overly promotional part, let me know and I will remove it. If there are components of the article that could stand-alone then I'll edit it. If you are fixed on the mis-belief that all or any of the information is not reliable then let's delete the page. -- Mxhunter (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one is disputing that the article is factual. The problem is that the sources cited that mention MojoMojo are generally not accepted as reliable sources in Wikipedia (at least not for the purposes of establishing notability). It is extremely rare for software to meet notability standards in the early stages, no matter how much potential the software has. If MojoMojo is going to be as important as you believe it will be, it will get coverage in independent reputable publications and/or a large take-up, it will wualify for an article. But Wikipedia is for things that are notable now, not things that are going to be notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MojoMojo is important and notable today. Furthermore the argument you provide for reliability is strongly correlated to popularity, and if I have a friend of friend that will write me an article a in tech. publication; presto I'm credible. That's pretty lame. You fail to understand open source software and in particular the notability of this leading Catalyst example application of open source software. In light of this ignorance, I motion to delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxhunter (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, I am writing this using Ubuntu which I installed myself, so I'd think twice before you accuse me of knowing nothing about open source software (and, indeed, any clued-up editor will know the open-source nature of Wikiepdia itself). You suggestion of a mate writing an article about you in a tech magazine making you notable? No, because notability requires coverage in multiple independent sources, and that would be neither. The notability standards for software are a bit vague, and any suggestions for making it clearer are welcome, but one argument which is never going to be accepted as a claim of notability is "because I said so." (Certainly not when it appears to be coming from someone who is involved in creating the software.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wahoo you can install Ubuntu. That's not a reliable or notable indication you know squat about open source software  ;) Actually, the original comment was intended for some of the other detractors. Furthermore, I am not claiming to be the reliable source in any way. I am arguing reliable sources exist, but I'm beating a dead horse. I'm done with this circus act. Please delete the MojoMojo article. Mxhunter (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* The onus is on the article contributors to present the reliable sources. Your choice. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the onus is on Wikipedia to shape up if it wants to ever be relevant. As long as people like you continue judging the 21st century by the standards of the 19th, you will have this problem. The internet is here. It's real. You may in fact be using it right now! Any phenomena that take place entirely within the scope of the internet, you ignore, no matter their relevance, but any lie with enough connections to be "published" is solid gold. Andrew Rodland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Catalyst is relevant a lot, so its Wiki to a lesser extend. Its pure lazyness that i didn't wrote a Mojo article in the german Wiki, where i mainly contributing (perl articles). Lichtkind (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And how is this relveancy documented? Because it doesn't appear to be documented in reliable soures. -- Whpq (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily, Lichtkind; a notable larger whole does make its pieces notable individually, unless (as Whpq reminds us) it's documented in RS's. WP:V! --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there didn't seem to be referneces to notability from major sources; they mostly appear to simply defining it (e.g. what it is) what it is rather than making it famous (e.g. being a staple of the world.) --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:POTENTIAL --Jhannah (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MojoMojo is an excellent and flagship wiki based on the Catalyst framework that has the potential to compete with other wiki software with a large user base. Development is ongoing and many a thing can be learned from getting involved with said development. schmoitzel! (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) — Dhoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Folks who wish to keep the article, please heed this advice, which I offer in the best spirit of open discussion and cooperation: remember that this is not a vote; 100 more keep opinions aren't going to count for beans if they primarily state how wonderful MojoMojo may be or how successful it's going to be -- unless they're well-founded in guidelines & policy, the closing admin is simply going to gloss over them. MojoMojo may very well be the best thing since sliced bread, but if no one's written about it in a reliable source, it has no place here. From WP:V, one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia:
“ The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. ”
There's still almost a day until this AfD expires; I strongly suggest directing your efforts towards improving the article, if you feel it can be salvaged. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that in the case of open-source software, verifiability is not an issue: MojoMojo can be downloaded at any time, and all the claims about its features can be verified either by installing its codebase, or directly online. -- Dandv (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would argue that for web software, when an organization opts to use it it is an endorsement of the software. Especially in an area of software development with as many options as Wikis. There are several public sites who think MojoMojo is notable enough to choose over all the other options. There are many more that are used internally to companies (as wikis often are) that reflect that same opinion. Also - it is clear to anyone working on the development of wiki-like software that MojoMojo has features that make it notable. I think that after the comments and points people have made and edits to the MojoMojo page, the argument that it is not notable has become Wikilawyering in that it is supported only by the letter of the reference argument rather than the spirit of Wikipedia in notability. It is notable in it's features. it is notable in that it is used for public presence of organization's websites. It is notable in that it is an example of a complicated packaged and distributed general-purpose application based on Catalyst. To delete the article in spite of the above because there are not articles far enough away from the source that extol it's virtues (yet) is, I think, short sighted at best, and a violation of the principles of Wikipedia in favor of the letter of it's policies at worst. I also think that it is not invalid to allow young software with all the above notability the time it needs to garner the external references that the letter of the Wikipedia policies request. --Jayk806 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Having this same issue with an article I made the mistake of writing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MagicView. Maybe some here will understand what I am saying and explain it better *there*. Maybe reading what have tried to explain *there* can be helpful *here*. In a nutshell:
far too many it seems have gotten into their heads that wikipedia is an abstract of the web-- a listing only of subjects that have already been raised in webpages indexed by google. Looking at wikipedia guidelines carefully you'll see that there really isn't much support for the position that if a subject doesn't have sufficient buzz on the 'approved list' of google search result pages, that WHATEVER the content is, wikipedia is the wrong place for it.
if we look at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions we see that "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet." Further, if we look at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_for we see that "some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept". If we examine the full depth of the notability purpose we'll find that "Notability: Wikipedia guidelines on minimal standards of importance exist for *some* types of topics, including biographies of living people, articles about music or musicians, companies and corporations, fictional topics, and articles about web-specific content."
this article is about SOFTWARE. it is not about a living person, music, companies, fictional topics or web-specific content. It needs to be judged on criteria appropriate for NOTABLE SOFTWARE, not criteria for other things that are notable. People write books on POPULAR software, not on narrow interest software that may be much more noteworthy.
A consenus to 'delete' should be based on whether the SUBJECT of the article should stand on its own, or be included in another article. It is NOT to delete content. The deletion debate should be about WHEN (OR NOT) AN ARTICLE IS APPROPRIATE TO MERGE WITH ANOTHER. My view (and i've looked, and have coded for years in perl) is that this article is CLEARLY NOTABLE WHEN REVIEWING EXTERNAL REFERENCES. From the perspective of someone who UNDERSTANDS THE SUBJECT, the subject matter is not only notable, but clearly so.
Look at the SUBJECT MATTER the program covers, not the 'name' of the program itself. As a subject there is plenty of external coverage, even if the magic 'name' of this software isn't mentioned.
Hope this is helpful in offering maybe a different perspective to those making decision to delete. If anyone understood what have expressed and you agree, sharing that insight on my MagicView deletion discussion might be extremely helpful. My own attempts there to do so on my own have been far less than successful. YSWT (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(note too that the tone of the 'delete' voices here are 1000% more polite, civilized, and RATIONAL than my with own experience.)
http://www.wikimatrix.org/show/MojoMojo and http://www.webcitation.org/5eIA484Vl *are* credible external references FOR SOFTWARE OF THIS TYPE. The same would not be true likely for many other subjects but JUST LIKE WIKIPEDIA HAS DISTINCT CRITERIA FOR OTHER SUBJECTS SOFTWARE needs to be judged based on what actually is in the real world legitimate references for software. Unless it is incredibly popular and hard to use, no one writes books about software. Being Popular isn't the same as being notable.
maybe it hasn't been expressed in best language by each 'keep' voice, but I think there is a consensus that these sources are credible. Is it possible to hold open discussion for others to add/reply ? YSWT (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - despite what you may wish or believe, wikis and self-published sources do not demonstrate notability. Sources that don't use the name MojoMojo clearly aren't discussing MojoMjo. -- Whpq (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reply - In the context of software, WHAT PREVENTS a wiki (if the wiki is itself a credible source, for example, a technical wiki) from demonstrating notability FOR SOFTWARE. If microsoft published a warning that its System G had a "MMMV" virus that would delete your drive, an article on MMMV would not be proper since original source was self-published by microsoft ?? An article on XXX law of USA can't be made if only web text of that law is on US GOV owned/self-published source ?? WHERE IS THAT IN WIKIGUIDELINES (hey, maybe you know something) relating to SOFTWARE.YSWT (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As not meeting the notability guideline since the product hasn't been discussed in detail by reliable, third party sources independant of the subject. Also note the meatpuppets here. Themfromspace (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reply saying "not meeting the notability guideline since the product hasn't been discussed in detail by reliable, third party sources independant of the subject" is like saying "not meeting the notability guideline since is not meeting the notability guideline". In the CONTEXT OF SOFTWARE, for *this* subject, WHAT *specifically* about the sources sited isn't reliable or independant.
  • and look, what is or is not a reliable source for *this* subject should be something arrived at by consensus. That's *supposed* to be the whole point of this. YSWT (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RS defines what is meant by a reliable source. For software, there are plenty of industry magazines. These would be reliable sources indpendent of the subject. If yu can provide such coverage, then most editors would be quite happy to change their view. I know I would. But arguing that clearly self-published sources demonstrate notability will not get oyu very far. -- Whpq (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question how do you identify a 'meatpuppet' ? Whoever posted those tags is cheating. (the same thing, interesting was done with my own MagicView delete discussion. I just clicked on -Planetscape shows:
   * 02:13, 3 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MojoMojo ‎ (→MojoMojo:  Registered my 'keep' vote)
   * 19:19, 13 September 2007 (hist) (diff) m WDDX ‎ (added Perl to the list of programming languages which support WDDX)
   * 15:06, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) m The Monroe Institute ‎
   * 15:00, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) m Remote viewing ‎
   * 14:46, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) m Sensory deprivation ‎
   * 08:26, 28 July 2006 (hist) (diff) m Greatest common divisor ‎ (→External links)
   * 11:59, 27 July 2006 (hist) (diff) m Topological sorting ‎ (→External links)
   * 06:03, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m Vampire ‎ (→Related legendary creatures)
   * 05:48, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m Vampire ‎ (→Roma and vampires)
   * 03:12, 17 July 2005 (hist) (diff) m Human genome ‎ (→External Links)

A contributor since 2005, topics from human genome to Topological sorting to The Monroe Institute, and you someone (hmmm, wonder who) flagged them as a 'meatpuppet' ? Did I miss something ?

  • As a software developer, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I had been reading your article and focused on the fact that it's built on top of Catalyst, which I am also familiar with (albeit I'm partial to Python ones like TurboGears and Twisted). When I typed this, I mistakenly used framework instead of content management system. That's all. My opinion that this project is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia stands, with no prejudice to re-creating it when and if it does become better known. Having used everything from Plone to Bricolage to MoinMoin to ScrewTurn and being an admittedly minor expert on the CMS you're using right now, I'm actually on pretty sure footing here, so don't worry. §FreeRangeFrog 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no.no.no. Your PERSONAL approval or disapproval is *not* the issue. Does the subject have OBJECTIVE EXTERNAL REFERENCE. *that* is the question. And to answer that question we need to use a critia appropriate for SOFTWARE.YSWT (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion and recommendation to keep/delete is based on Wikipedia guidelines and knowledge of the CMS ecosystem, not on personal feelings. As to objective external references, that article has none. Which is probably the reason for the delete !votes here. And I'd recommend against rampaging this AfD as you did the other one. §FreeRangeFrog 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep While I don't believe in that two wrongs would make a right, however in the software case there are hundreds, if not thousands of wiki entries for less notable software than this one (and personally, I think it's a good thing to have those pages, too). That isn't a question of right and wrong anymore, but a question of precedent and refraining from applying double standards, in order to remain consistent. There is no argument about that everyone would be happier if more sources would establish the notability of this software, however it would be a strawman to imply that there exists the expectation that wikipedia pages can only be created for exceptionally well known or widely used software. Furthermore, in the Perl community this software is most definitely considered notable, as evidenced by the various posts on Perl related news sites, blogs, community wikis and forums. I do not believe that the deletionist approach would remain consistent with the spirit of wikipedia policies, even if it remains debatable at level of the strict letters. A beautiful mind (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes.yes.yes Thankyou. You've addressed the question that should be asked, and needs to be answered by consensus. What criteria should apply to software. If it is notable for a community of users, as evidenced by the credible resources RELIED UPON BY *THAT* COMMUNITY then the software should be notable for wikipedia. Share that consensus with A beautiful mind. (Now if I could just get that same concept over to the 'friendly' folks beating the doors down on my little MagicView page....)YSWT (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient reliable sources to indicate notability. Rklawton (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - join in consensus with that, CPANTS Heavy 100 is a reliable reference of notability of perl modules. Also note, "insufficient reliable sources to indicate notability" is not a helpful contribution to the discussion. If you feel, for example, that the CPANTS H100 isn't a reliable reference, it would be helpful (even interesting) to hear your view as to the reason.YSWT (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A community consensus of what determines notability for software cannot be reached in a single AfD; it must be determined by a much broader range of editors, including those who have a strong background with Wikipedia. We cannot make up guidelines as we go here, which appears to be the growing beliefs among those wishing to keep the article. Notability guidelines for software have been debated for years. The closest we've come to a consensus was at Wikipedia:Notability (software), but that never reached a full consensus. Still though, if we apply this standard, again the closest we've come yet, this article clearly fails criteria. Despite comments above, CPANTS has not been determined by the commmunity as a whole to be a reliable source (I see no discussion about CPANTS at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, for one). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this single source (which by the way seems to be the single closest thing yet provided to a RS; WP:SOFT requires multiple RS's) claims
“ The CPANTS Heavy 100 index lists the CPAN distributions with the highest number of dependencies on other CPAN distributions. ”
Now as a bit of a layman to this sort of thing, again I may be wrong here, but it seems to be that this is merely a list of products with the most ties (ties may not be the best "plain english" term for this, I admit) to other products. It does not appear to claim to list how popular/heavily used it is on its own. Perhaps an argument can be made that many other products make use of MojoMojo (a reverse dependency), but the notability of a greater whole does not confer notability to its smaller parts. However, even if the CPANTS list could be considered a reliable source, the mention of MojoMojo is what Wikipedia would consider "trivial"; i.e. it lists MojoMojo without comment. Thus, by any (community-accepted) definition of reliable, we're still left with 0 RS's. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:38, 5 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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Guide to Women's Writing in English[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Cambridge Guide to Women's Writing in English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is large list. Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a stub and minus the list. We can't include the list, even if we wanted to. We might as well plagiarise the whole book and have done with it. I am going to go ahead and stub it right now as it is a copyright issue. To read the pre-stubbed version go to: [19] --DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as a stub. The book is certainly notable but the contents don't belong on wikipedia as such a large list. Here is the book's listing in British Library which qualifies the book as notable under WP:BK. OlYellerTalktome 19:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BK doesn't say that a book is notable if it's in the British Library. Most books are in the BL. It says that a book that's not in the BL is almost certainly not notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point. I guess I saw the rule to be used for inclusion instead of exclusion. I still think it should be kept as I still believe it's notable for the other reasons given. OlYellerTalktome 00:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The British Library's remit is to catalogue and keep a copy of every single book published in the UK (see British Library#Legal deposit). I am sure that they have a whole load of non-notable rubbish stored in their expensive, fireproof vaults. Having a catalogue entry certainly does not confer notability but it is a useful reference for verifiability of things like publication dates. I think the reference which establishes notability is the review by The Independent. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, AfD isn't for cleanup. The article was obviously notable and an article being too long isn't grounds for deletion under WP:DELETE. Thanks for trying to help Wikipedia clean and I know your actions were in good faith but I'd check out that article before marking an article again. I'm not the best wiki editor but I can help you decide if it should be marked, if you want, in the future. OlYellerTalktome 20:24, 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 05:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer (porn star)[edit]

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

Appears to be about two separate individuals. No sources, all kinds of potential BLP issues. No real indication of notability, just unsupported assertions. Delete - if a viable article can be created can be started from scratch. Exxolon (talk) 19:20, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Blatch[edit]

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

Unreferenced, possible hoax. No evidence to back up breaststroke record. Ghits: "Michael Blatch" +breaststroke. Looks like the record holders in 1964 were a couple of gents from the Soviet Union: World record progression 100 metres breaststroke. Zip for "Graeme Day trophy". Last, but not least (or maybe it is?); soccer (football): "Michael Blatch" +soccer, "Michael Blatch" +football. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The best I can do is confirm at least one person with that name exists. As for the rest, it smells hoaxy and Google isn't telling me anything different. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as there is no claim of notability --Boston (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are multiple claims of notability, but the claims are completely unverifiable. Townlake (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. A hoax? Almost certainly. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of compression[edit]

Laws of compression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Theory of compression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Van den Swaerdenheem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Walled garden of articles by a new editor about a Swedish "hobby-astronomer" and his fringe theories. Only source quoted is a paper which was presented but not accepted at a conference last year. Searches in Google Scholar and Google find nothing. Various speedies and PRODs have been applied, but it seems sensible to bring them all together here. Possible hoax, certainly not notable. Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - as notability is not indicated. Even having this discussion is rewarding bad behavior on the part of the editor who created these. --Boston (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was irritated by the protocol-violating deletion, and spoke in haste. Has now addressed your concern. --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The astronomer could be speedied, but not his theories; they may as well all go together. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a student of Astronomy in Stockholm, and I became interested in this fringe theory of compression. I wrote the article for Wikipedia, which you kindly noted was fringe nonsense. I agree it is fringe, but why is it nonsense? If I use my calculator, and plot in the values for say the Sun and Venus, it all comes out right. And if it is right, from a mathematical point of view, how could it be nonsense? I agree fringe, but not nonsense. --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cites no reliable sources, I can't find anything on Google or Google Scholar even mentioning this theory or its creator outside of Wikipedia. Clearly not notable. Hut 8.5 19:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and transwiki to the astronomy Wikia. Ottre 22:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Fringe nonsense. Absolutely doesn't belong anywhere near Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Unsourced and unsourceable - I couldn't find "A rougher pebble" anywhere, nor any information on the author of this theory. I'm forced to conclude that the only adherent of this theory is its author. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And me. And some of my friends at the uni. :) My humble suggestion is that you use the scientific method on this theory, instead of insulting the author. He is probably a nobody, but his mathematical formulae do work. That is why we used it in my class. --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Dear people, I am the guilty person publishing his theory, and I thought it was relevant, since we have discussed this theory at my university, and I was one of those who liked it and thought it was a possible explanation of the P-11 anomaly. (Apparently a large part of the anomaly is mundane, according to this theory, but the last part has a twist to it.) Apparently the author is a completely unknown person, and I haven´t found anything on the Internet, or in the libraries, so first I thought it was a hoax, but I can´t give up just now. I will try and call the author and ask him on Monday, and ask him what he means by his theory. Let us just remember two things; we are discussing two issues, science and encyclopaedia. Even a mad theory, such as "lamarckism", does fit in an encyclopaedia. Personally, I think that Mordehai Milgroms MOND-theory is sheer and utter nonsense - from a physical point of view - but it is still worthy of an article. ANYONE with elementary physical education will se the importance of the formulae in the article "Theory of Compression". So please don´t take me for a fanatic, I am still on the sceptical side, but I think that this theory has some merit, more than that of a hoax. --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lamarckism was an incorrect but widely disseminated theory. This theory is not popular - it's not even published. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meatballs, the point is that Wikipedia is not a place for first publication of anything - see No Original Research and Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. We don't decide whether a new theory is true or even interesting: we leave that task to others, such as the editors of peer-reviewed journals. The question here is, have Van den Swaerdenheem and his theories become notable enough for Wikipedia, and the test is, are there independent reliable secondary sources that discuss them? JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm concentrating on the Van den Swaerdenheem article, rather than the other two. The name "Carl van den Swaerdenheem" give exactly only one Google hit - this article - and "van den Swaerdenheem" yields zero hits in the phone directory search for all public Swedish numbers (Eniro). The name is either seriously misspelled, or he's called something completely different, or he's a hoax. No reliable sources, not verifiable, delete! Tomas e (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per other Editors research and AGF...--Buster7 (talk) 01:30, 4 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.

End of story Ok, I finally got hold of the man. It took some time, though, for I couldn´t find him in the telephone directory over here in Sweden. Apparently he lives in Finland and has spelled his name differently prior to the present spelling. He was not very happy about my publication, since he thought it was a lot of work that had to be done around his theories. He said that the theory was not really ready for any publication what so ever. He said he would probably think about it for "a year or maybe 20". But he said that I could put up a webpage and publish his laws and formulae, since he said that they were "obviously accurate". So I got permisson to do that. I was a little disturbed by the discussion, since he did not seem to take any care what so ever about making his theory known, and I thought that he had a duty to do so, but he said that it was "just a hobby" to him, and that he didn´t care much about it. So, to sum it up, I agree with the deletion, but will go ahead with a webpage. Thank you for the discussion. --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 06:55, 5 March 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 keep. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unificationists[edit]

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

I know that WP has other lists of members of religions. However this article has a lot of problems. It starts out by listing Rev. Moon's family, who are already the subject of another article: True Family. It then lists some church members (Unificationists if you don't know are members of the Unification Church). It then lists some former members. Here is one problem: The Unification Church (says its article) is a religious movement. People join, leave, and some re-join after leaving, all the time. How are you going to keep track if someone is a member or a former member? Call them up every day to ask them? Being listed as a member or a former member could potentially cause problems for a person, a problem for WP:BLP policies. Most of the article is uncited and some semi-notable people seem to have added themselves, or been added by friends, for the sake of self-promotion. Notable church members could be researched by means of categories (as already are in use) without the need for a list. (Disclaimer: I am a Unificationist, but not an important enough one to be on the List of Unificationists.) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Since a "list" of religious adherents is never complete, shouldn't this be a category, if it continues to exist in some form? Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are already several categories for Unificationists. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be a list of the Moon family members and high ranking individuals within the Unification Church's business operations. I don't see the encyclopedic value of this list. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The list can easily be improved upon by adding a citation to a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source for every entry on the list. See List of Scientologists for a list that is maintained better, with a citation to a secondary source for every entry. Cirt (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have begun to do a bit of cleanup on the list. I will work to add a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source for each entry. Cirt (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Neutral while the major members on this list could as easily be dealt with by a category (and would typically have citation in their own articles for their being active in Unificationism), this list serves as a place for mention of more marginal members, for whom mention of in primary sources (including their own writing) and/or trivial mention in secondary sources clearly indicates are active in (and often are prominent within the context of) Unificationism, but lack the significant third party coverage (and thus prominence in the wider world) to sustain their own articles. Tyler Hendricks & Won Pil Kim would appear to be candidates for this treatment. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just found WP:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people, which states that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." (emphasis in original) This would appear to preclude the advantage of the list that I discussed above, so I'm changing my !vote to "Neutral". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW there are people who believe in the teachings of Rev. Moon who are not Unification Church members. There are also people who no longer believe in him and have left the church but still believe in the ideal of Unificationism. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: what is the deletion standard (in terms of notability and/or encyclopaedic content) for stand-alone lists? I see many 'List of episodes of XXX' or 'List of characters of XXX' articles for many topics, almost ubiquitously without sourcing, and many of which have main articles (on 'XXX') that are of very marginal notability and very minimal sourcing. Is there a consistent standard, or is it merely case-by-case WP:ILIKEIT on the list in question? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Cirt - religious affiliation, if a notable part of a person's public identity will be subjected to scrutiny under BLP. This is a question of article maintenance, not of existence of the list, which is clearly a good list to have as a supplement to articles related to this religious movement.--Cerejota (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just also removed or changed some of the problems with original research and uncited potentially negative material on the list. I would not object to it so much if there really was a commitment to keep it up to WP standards. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists of members of a church, etc. are normal on WP. Could be retitled since most people do not know what a Unificationist is. Borock (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Cirt but consider retitling as per Borock. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consider being strict about requiring RS references for each person on the list as per List of Scientologists. (Although, I don't think the Hollywood gossip mill and joke additions are such a problem with Unificationists.) AndroidCat (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. The UC is not so big in the show-biz community as Scientology. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Keep per Hrafn. 2. Retitle per Borock. In addition to Borock's argument, many more people know "Unification Church" than know "Unificationists." The alternative label "Unificationists" can be mentioned in bold in the first sentence of the article. 3. Address problems in the list per Steve Dufour and Cirt. I did not think any of those on the list were added by self/friends; Steve, why don't you name the ones you think are in that category. Even in the last 24 hours, editors have made a lot of changes to this article, and the vast majority are very good. The article seems to be greatly improved. -Exucmember (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I responded to the self/friends issue on the article's talk page. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. How large should a sect be before it ranks such a list? Bearian (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is not a matter of size but of notability. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case about half the article is taken up by the Moons' family, which has its own article. The other half is mostly church officials, who are mainly spokespersons for Rev. Moon, plus just a couple of people who who have become notable in the larger world. I'm not sure for whom the list would be useful. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is simply because individuals haven't taken the time to clean up the list and source each entry yet, and/or write Wikipedia articles about other notable members and former members. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has a secondary source ever discussed the topic "Members of the Unification Church"? Steve Dufour (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources have discussed the individuals on the list as being members of the Unification Church. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 5 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space archaeology[edit]

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

original research. None of the sources cited actually use the term except for some illegal self-published external links. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure This seems to be a real and notable topic. I have seen it discussed in various places. I don't know if the expression "space archaeology" is the right title for the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This page lists published sources in the public domain. Therefore, the charge that it is "original research" in the sense of "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" is a stretch. The links are not "self-published"; for example, the [Lunar Legacy Project] is maintained by New Mexico State University. The term "space archaeology" is in use, as the links show. I don't think the grounds raised for deletion of the article are substantiated. I'd suggest some constructive thoughts for improvement are in order, rather than deletion. Brews ohare (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this direction, this article has been expanded and more references added. Brews ohare (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article appears to have expanded and gained more sources since nom. Possible rename to Lunar Archaeology in line with the sources? I'm sure we can change it back should we unexpectedly land on Mars. Artw (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has a good number of independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article has reliable sources and seems noteworthy. It may gain in importance with more 'artifacts' in space in the future...though this is a crystal ball prediction on my part. --Artene50 (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cannot be merged to Xenoarchaeology. Not a "neologism" – Wikipedia has some freedom in naming articles on new but notable topics. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Space heritage, currently a stub. This is another instance where deletion is the wrong place to debate naming conventions. In the future, please bring issues with article titles to the talk page. In current practice, "space archaeology" is commonly referred to as SETI, since that is exactly what it is. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Space heritage is about a major topic discussed in Space archaeology. However, Space heritage should be redirected to Space archaeology. More at Talk:Space heritage. Brews ohare (talk) 12:33, 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 merge to Fireproof (film). MBisanz talk 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fireproof My Marriage[edit]

Fireproof My Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not established. While there are 4 "citations", none of them are independent from the subject matter. Andrew c [talk] 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CitizenLink is owed by Focus on the Family, one of the partners of "Fireproof My Marriage". How are press releases from organizations hosting seminars for this group "independent"? How are you defining independent? That said, I would not oppose a merge to the movie's article.-Andrew c [talk] 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no substantive third party coverage. CitizenLink is part of Focus on the Family and so is not independent. Florida Baptist Witness & Baptist Press coverage is simply "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements" (WP:NOT#NEWS) of an upcoming seminar. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The CitizenLink article, already problematic, doesn't seem to address the specific subject of this article. Brief entries announcing meetings in a newspaper's calendar are insufficient to establish notability. There isn't even a writeup about it in any Christian press outlet, which might help establish through other sources beyond the group's own website what it is and why it is notable. Until such references appear, it should be deleted. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fireproof (film). Worth a mention there, but not notable enough to stand on its own since it seems to be just an event or series of events not discussed in depth by secondary sources. It will find more interested readers if merged. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge This is associated with Fireproof (film) which is very notable. Disentangling coverage of the film, the website and the general programme seems problematic but the topics seem sufficiently different to keep separate for now. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 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. yandman 10:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faheem Ahmed Nazar[edit]

Faheem Ahmed Nazar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined CSD. Article fails WP:BLP - cites no sources, makes no claims of notability other than a team member of a non-notable club. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google has next to nothing on him, and I did try searching on various permutations of his name with "cricket". A genuine professional cricketer for a notable team would undoubtedly have significant coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cricinfo has a comprehensive database of cricketers who play at the level deemed notable here, and has nothing on this player. None of the Nazars listed has a remotely similar full name, and in the Faheems the closest matches are two Faheem Ahmeds, but the first was born in 1980 and the second played his solitary first-class match in 2001/02, when the subject of this article would have been 13 or 14. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 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 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Lebiedinsky[edit]

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

Mildly interesting as this person seems to be, there are no sources listed for any of the information on the page (and it is expected, of course, that sources be listed for all the info on the page). Furthermore, no effort is made to assert notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: The French and Spanish articles are very similar in content and are also unreferenced, so no help there. Google does not have much on him apart from mirrors of the various Wikipedia articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not confident this isn't at least partially a hoax. --Boston (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why it should be a hoax but the fact that we can't prove that it isn't shows how weak its case is. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep It is not a hoax-- the family is discussed in "Mélanges d'histoire de la médecine hébraïque: Etudes choisies de la Revue dh́istoire de la médecine hébraïque (1948-1984) By Gad Freudenthal, Samuel S. Kottek, Paul Fenton, Compiled by Gad Freudenthal, Samuel S. Kottek, Published by BRILL, 2002, ISBN 9004125221, 9789004125223 Google books but i cannot keep the several family members of that name straight from the material visible in google. There is an alternate Romanization of his name: Georges Lebidinsky. As a source, there is also [20] which refers to Wp for the portrait, but gives a French government reference [21] which unfortunately did not work for me but might on a better connection. I finally found an independent source that I could access properly: http://normandieniemen.free.fr/Joseph_Risso.htm] though it just has a mention. DGG (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a complete hoax. I just think that if all we can get out of a reliable source is a mere mention of him, then we're not going to be able to keep 99% of the article, and he's scarcely notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The book referred to above by DGG only seems to have a couple of sentences about the subject at the bottom of this page as an aside when discussing his father. It says that he continued his father's research. This book mentions the subject on eight pages, and the references are to the same Georges Lebiedinsky (born in Kiev and joined the Free French), but I'm not sure about its status as a reliable source. It appears to be either a work of fiction or a dramatisation of historical events. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eyebrows (advert)[edit]

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

I am not 100% satisfied that this article is notable, correctly titled, or has any place in an encyclopedia. I don't feel that strongly about this, but would like to be sure of the consensus on such things.

I won't object to a SNOW keep if the immediate votes indicate that things might go that way. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no indication given why this advert is notable, no awards won etc. feydey (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, after review I still see that the article attests that the advert is notable because: It has been reported on in numerous news media and blogs and resulted in many people doing eyebrow dances in YouTube videos and parodied in television program The Sunday Night Project. Some news clippings, blogs, Youtube and one parody is not enough for me, as there are hundreds of adverts mentioned on newspapers, blogs and parodied on Youtube. So still not notable. P.S. The BBC column "Ad Breakdown" alone has around 50 reviews of adverts. feydey (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, There are millions of adverts produced all the time. How many of these adverts get news coverage in the national newspapers, from the tabloid Sun, to the Financial Times and by the BBC. This is clearly notable, and is covered in verifiable, reliable news sources. And it is more popular than Cadbury's previous Gorilla (advert). Also check out the number of discussions it has provoked by searching Google blogs or Google groups or Google web.Charvest (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, apparently WP:notable in the UK. --Boston (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not 100% satisfied that the nomination has passed WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am delighted to be able to assure anyone interested that the nomination has passed WP:BEFORE as I have followed the instructions there. As I distinctly said in my nom, it's a weak delete but I think worth looking at, but I would be interested nonetheless to hear if Colonel Warden actually has a rationale for his "keep" other than that he thinks I didn't read the deletion policy? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:07, 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 no consensus - default to delete. Clearly no consensus here to delete or to keep (not a vote counting exercise). The deletion policy and precedents suggest that deletion is acceptable in BP cases - given the balance between the policy of WP:NOT#NEWS and the guideline of WP:N, the discussion here lends itself to a default deleition, with no predjudice to recreation if further cases/coverage occur. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked a followup to this on my talkpage, and I have copied my more detailed explanation of this close to the talkpage of this AfD (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Caroline Dunsmore) Fritzpoll (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Dunsmore[edit]

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

There are many, many such people in this world and the mere fact that they have been convicted of serious crimes does not automatically make them notable. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a news story not an encyclopaedic subject in itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree strongly that every criminal does not deserve a page, but Ms. Dunsmore has been the subject of ongoing controversy for a long time. The article needs more extensive sourcing, which is available from numerous gnews sources, but that does not mean that we should scrap it! 7triton7 (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand the heck out of it. It need not be just about Caroline, but about the trial, the repercussions, and the subsequent angst and litigation when her daughter wrote the book. While I agree that Wiki is not the news (despite we loving the news to source articles)... wiki is about notable history once the "news" is old. This is no longer news. It is olds. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is fine for a stub. It is a noteworthy topic, which deserves its own article. And wikipedia has no limit in space, so if it meets the notable guidelines, or the rules of common sense by group consensus, it gets its own article. Dream Focus 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This certainly seems notable enough. Depending how the court cases go this might be one large article about all the cases. Certainly we would have this included regardless if it's a stand alone or the first in a longer list. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:48, 5 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. Alexf(talk) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan Smithson[edit]

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

Contested prod. Probable conflict of interest. Non-notable musician for non-notable bands. ~EdGl (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pls. no sources no supposed connections just vanity. Mystache (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedu Delete as notability is not claimed. Personal attack was included in text but since edited out. ----Boston (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete please, and a serious warning to the author for contributing such nonsense. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a biography which doesn't establish notability of the subject. (Also, an unsourced BLP.) So tagged. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:14, 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. and salting MBisanz talk 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Clampett[edit]

cat=M Katelyn Clampett was a contestant on American Idol Season 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.47.77 (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deleted multiple times, last speedy contested. Contains claims of notability that disqualify for speedy. Claims are only supported in Myspace page. Without reliable sources, it should be deleted (and probably salted). -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable singer. No valid references to support claims. Cannot find any references to "From Fairways to Airways" to support claim listed in article. "Performer/Songwriter Contest" was from Berklee College of Music - local contest. No hits in Google associating her with a "Songwriter Contest" award. Any potential Notability is based on future events that will probably not meet requirements. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Salt. This has been deleted three times in one day and is back for a fourth go with nothing new to redeem it. It is promotional and clearly does not meet the inclusion criteria. The subject is an aspiring musician about to release her first record on the internet. While she may have recorded songs for social networking sites, to call this a "discography" is a real stretch. She has a very long way to go before she gets within sight of encyclopaedic notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Non noteable and unreferenced 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 16:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability is not established by independent sources. ----Boston (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete but Don't Salt Not-notable, obviously, but in theory she could be someday, and at that time salting may prevent someone from writing an article. (Full disclosure: I subscribe to a salt-as-last-resort ideology) 7triton7 (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you are getting at, but we have to do something to prevent further recreation. Is there a way to do a timed Salt on it where recreation is blocked for, say, 1 or 2 months? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless a credible reference can be found, it should be deleted. I would suggest a time limited salt.Smallman12q (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt If/when she actually becomes notable, the article can then be de-salted. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 05:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Continual recreation is unacceptable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:41, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Lenier[edit]

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

Poet who has garnered almost no media attention, yet is "superior to Shakespeare", "better than Ted Hughes", and "a much bigger thing than Sylvia Plath". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment--I can't do anything with it right now, but there is some evidence that she's republished and anthologized: [22]. I cut some fluff from the article. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--though somewhat weakly. Two books of poems, reviews of which I haven't been able to find (the Daily Mirror archive is inaccessible to me; the MLA has nothing, but I haven't tried JSTOR and EAI yet), but, most importantly for our purposes, a full-length article on her in the Washington Post (not bad for a then-25 year old British grad student), a poem anthologized, and two mentions in scholarly books (a mid-length discussion in a footnote and a more-than-passing mention; that's more than some folks get). If indeed her plays were performed at the Edinburgh festival, that would help: I can't verify that. One other mention in a book--but that's a snippet I can't get anything useful out of. Let her stay, I say. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Drmies has already maded a convincing case, but if any more is needed here is a 1249-word article in the Los Angeles Times about the subject and here are 1006 words in the New York Times. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phil, thanks for the references! I'll bring them in when I have a moment, if someone else hasn't done so already. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above. The article could use cleanup, especially all the quoting. It sounds more like a PR piece than an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, I didn't think that "her career has landed in a backwater" was very promotional... Drmies (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • True dat! But I was referring to the gush of quotes and material like "Still, she made quite an impression even in the United States, as attested by a lengthy article devoted to her in the Washington Post by Colman McCarthy". In any case, the backwater comment should also go. NPOV seems to be violated from both directions in this article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I try to be an equal opportunity offender... Are you really asking me to be, like, encyclopedic? Drmies (talk) 03:44, 4 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas L. Evans (archaeologist)[edit]

Thomas L. Evans (archaeologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Stub article on academic archaeologist whose claim to notability seems to be two books, one as sole author and the other as co-editor. There are no refs other than to his own works.

This seems to be to be marginal wrt WP:PROF's notability criteria, so I am listing this article at AFD without recommendation in the hope that those who know how to assess academics by such techniques as counting their citations can make a more informed assessment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability is not established. ----Boston (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N at present. --Artene50 (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • note Google scholar seems to turn up very little. This suggests the Digital Archeology book has only been cited once, and the other book not at all, the only other work by TL Evans in Arcaehology was a 1985 paper in South African Archaeological Bulletin (cited once) that I assume is another author. I could not find his present institution. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete "Digital archaeology bridging method and theory", New York : Routledge, 2006, a general book, but of which he is only a co-editor, has 508 Library holdings in worldcat ; there are 50 for "Quantitative identities : a statistical summary and analysis of Iron Age cemeteries in North-Eastern France, 600-130 B.C." a very much more specialised work. Considering the slow citation pattern in the field, this is too soon to expect much in the way of citations, as Peter confirmed. There are probably a few paper also, but I have not yet been able to identify them. This is not enough to make him an expert respected in the fieldsince he was not the author of the digital archeology book, just the writer of the introduction. DGG (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also related AFD for his co-editor, Patrick Daly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course, if he played sports professionally, he would be notable... because this is Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I prefer to think of it as two Wikipedias: one for knolwedge pertaining to academic topics, and the second for the fandom of sports, gundam and characters appearing in two pages of twelve volume sci fi novels. If he were any of the latter, he'd qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, but this is Wikipedia, where WP:N still holds... Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deeply sympathise with the frustration relating to the way that WP:N allows reams to written on sports players and fictional characters, particularly after recently spending two weeks battling a wikilawyering attempt to delete election results, while squillions of detailed lists of sports scores remain unmolested. But in reality, WP:PROF is not a high threshold to pass, allowing the retention of articles which meet any one of with 9 extra criteria in addition to the basic principles of WP:BIO. I made no recommendation with this nomination, because it seemed to me that Evans might meet the significant impact criterion of WP:PROF; but from the evidence so far it seems that there isn't much verifiable to say to about Evans other the bare fact of than his two publications. WP:N and WP:V constrain wikipedia to holding up a mirror to the word as it is, and I think that the resulting bias towards trivia is probably more of a reflection on the generally poor state of reportage of academia than on wikipedia :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. According to WorldCat, the book Digital archaeology (which the subject co-edited, as noted by DGG) is actually in 258 libraries worldwide in electronic format, and in 211 in printed format. (Several libraries hold the book in both formats, so it is not appropriate to add them up to come up with a total number of holdings.) Given the low citation impact of the book, pointed out by Pete.Hurd, these holdings alone fall a bit short of establishing notability under WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). The subject may become WP-notable in the future, but has not reached that stage yet, in my opinion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't see the evidence of his work having a notable influence on scholarship in his field that would satisfy me that he has passed WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:54, 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 23:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Daly (archaeologist)[edit]

Patrick Daly (archaeologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced stub article on a recently-qualified archaeologist (DPhil in 2003). He is the co-editor of a paperback book on digital archaeology, and has some hits on google scholar. I am unsure how to assess his academic significance against WP:PROF, but it seems marginal. So I am listing the article here without recommendation in the hope that those who know how to check citations etc will be able to offer a more informed assessment of his notability (or lack of it). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I sympathize profoundly with your comment, I don't think the fact that the jocks can't get their act together should be an excuse for us to do the same... --Crusio (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all academics co-author books, fails WP:PROF. No notability asserted. Parslad (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Citation impact seems to be low. According to WorldCat, the book Digital archaeology (which the subject co-edited) is in 258 libraries worldwide in electronic format. Given the low citation impact of the book, these holdings alone fall a bit short of establishing notability under WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Like the subject’s co-editor (being discussed in another AfD), he may become WP-notable in the future, but has not reached that stage yet, in my opinion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently, this person does not have achievements to warrant an encyclopedia article. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article does not establish notability. Adam Zel (talk) 14:48, 4 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 23:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer Schapiro Curriculum Vitae at Columbia University[edit]

Meyer Schapiro Curriculum Vitae at Columbia University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As the title suggests, the page is a list of courses taught by Meyer Schapiro at Columbia University. I originally proposed the page for deletion (or merging to Meyer Schapiro in the form of a couple of sentences at best); B.Wind (talk · contribs) endorsed the proposal with a comment of Wikipedia is not a resume service; Wikipedia is not a personal web site. However, the page's creator contests the deletion on the article talk page. ("Actually, art historians might be interested to see his trajectory as a teacher to understand his theoretical output." - Fw2186 (talk · contribs)) Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. wp is not indiscriminate info. no links in or out. "All data was retrieved from Columbia University Bulletins, which can be located at University Archives at Columbia University's Rare Book & Manuscript Library." please leave it there unless it pertains to something else. Mystache (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a college catalog. If it is really important which courses he taught at Columbia, then very slightly merge into the Meyer Schapiro article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. His time teaching at Columbia receives a sentence in his main article - any info here that's worth keeping, of which I suspect there is none, can be put in that article to expand upon that topic. fuzzy510 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a course catalog... and especially not for courses that were all taught 80 years ago. Yes, it's kind of interesting that this information has survived at all, but not that interesting. We don't list the courses which Richard Feynman taught at Cornell and Caltech; the teaching work of a (relatively) minor art historian is no more notable. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But I want to go on record as saying this sort of article should be adjudicated on a case by case basis. "Courses taught by Einstein at Princeton" might have more merit--not saying it does, just saying it might 7triton7 (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per the above. If reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, emerge to verify that there is serious academic interest in the trajectory of Meyer Schapiro as a teacher, then I'd reconsider. In fact, if there's a course listed on the university calendar that has Meyer Schapiro's teaching at Columbia University as it's topic, then I'd change to "keep", I really would. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the person who seconded the prod. This is a person's cirriculum vitae despite his no longer being alive, and Wikipedia is not a resume service.B.Wind (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meyer Schapiro was indeed known for his teaching, among other things. Quoting a small part of the article on Schapiro in the Grove Art Online:
  • So what to do about this? I have to wonder at the vehemence with which some people threw themselves at this page. The page was proposed for deletion a few minutes after it was started. Why not take the brand new user who created the page gently by the hand and encourage him/her to use this material to improve the Meyer Schapiro article? Why not move the material to a user subpage where it can be developed to a fuller section on Schapiro's teaching and its significance, a section that could later be integrated into the Meyer Schapiro article? --Hegvald (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe he was prominent as an art historian and polymath, and his page here could do him more justice. Here's Noam Chomsky calling him "the art historian at Columbia who knows everything about everything." Of course, new users should be encouraged and while this page's topic is unusual for the encyclopedia, per Hegvald, userifying it is a fine idea. John Z (talk) 08:55, 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 05:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Classic Metal Show[edit]

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

This is an article about a minor local radio program. The article has existed in more or less this form for a long time now. It has been tagged to hell but there is no sign of real improvement. All it gets is fan writing and vandalism. It is used as a coat-rack for a lot of trivial gossip and back-biting. It is poorly sourced and almost entirely dependent on Blabbermouth.net which seems to be borderline as a Reliable Source to me. I think it fails notability, quite apart from everything else wrong with the article. The claims of book coverage might be worth further investigation but I will wager that they are passing mentions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suspect the claims that Blabbermouth.net is an unreliable source is based on prejudice for the simple fact that it refuses to conform to the mainstream, although if you dig deep the extreme small size of the staff could raise more genuine concern (although I am pretty convinced from long use that it seems consistantly reliable). However, the real problem with it is that it is notorious for covering literally anything relevant, regardless of actual newsworthyness, and the examples given in the article are evidence of just that; although it is actually kinda handy to have every interview from bands you like go through one source, it hardly nontrivial coverage makes in its own right. There is no real other claim to notability other than having gathered such 'controversial' statements, and besides, even if we call this nontrivial coverage, and ignore the fact that anything that does interviews will get passing media attention every so often with a decent one, there still isn't much else around in the way of relaible, third-party nontrivial sources. In short, a failure of WP:N. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable.--Bhockey10 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable show. JamesBurns (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Wether B (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks notability. No significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Existing list of notes is filled with links to blog on record company website which aren't reliable sources.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you get your facts straight. It isn't a blog. It is a news site, which gets hosting from a record firm in exchange for RR's banner at the top. They own the domain, but direct you to their chunk of RRs site via it. You haven't dug very deep, as the first link at the banner takes you to Roadrunner's propaganda own news section. Whatever other complaints can be made of the site - I've detailed the relevant ones above - it is as reliable as the mainstream in my experience. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment hosting details aside, there are still concerns with this source. It appears to be self published. Are there other, more reliable sources for this information? WP:RS tells us if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so. --Rtphokie (talk) 22:18, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stacee Brown[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Only slightly known for being a member of the Jackson family. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Pyrrhus16 14:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - notability is not inherited: apart from family connection, does not meet WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would a "merge all relevant info and redirect" (to whichever article) be more appropriate? Otherwise, deletion is certainly in order. ~EdGl (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - WP:Notability might exist but is not currently established by references. --Boston (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: no claims which can't be easily verified, she has apparently made an album with her sister Yashi. Ottre 22:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Just having made an album (which "did not succeed") is not enough for WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 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 08:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yashi Brown[edit]

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

(As above) Non-notable singer. Only slightly known for being a member of the Jackson family. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Pyrrhus16 14:19, 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. yandman 15:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Blackett (character)[edit]

Nancy Blackett (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not established. Significant OR. This article was posted to GAN where I reviewed and failed it. On second thought, I realized notability was not established and brought the article here for community input and assessment. Article fails the WP test for stand alone articles about fictional elements and does not merit a stand alone article. At best, the article should be have the flab cut away and then merged with a larger article such as Swallows and Amazons or the "List of characters from Arthur Ransome books".ItsLassieTime (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: vide the literary significance, both within Ransome's work and in a wider context, as an early feminist role-model for children, independently sourced and cited from feminist author and academic Sara Maitland. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major character in major series of children's novels. articles is well-sourced. Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I question whether the series is "major". It has won no awards in the field of children's literature and has generated no critical reviews or commentary from experts in the field of children's literature. Sara Maitland has essentially given a testimonial -- "I like the books because ...". She's not an expert in the field of children's literature and the little she has to say does not merit a stand alone article at WP. There is no evidence that Nancy Blackett has had any significant impact on children's literature then or now. It is not "major" by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply another period juvenile series like so many others. But aside from that ... the article fails to meet the WP criteria for stand alone articles about fictional characters. Ay, there's the rub. The article is sourced but not "well-sourced." Several refs are the novels themselves or related material from the series publisher (who has an interest, of course, in selling the books). One source is something of a "fan" journal from The Athur Ransome Society and is questionable as a reliable secondary source because fan clubs cannot help but be biased. Another source is a fan-bloggy sort of thing. And another source does little more than mention the character's name. There are no reliable secondary sources. While one may have a soft spot in one's heart for these books, that soft spot does not warrant a stand alone article for Nancy Blackett. The article should be have the flab cut away and what remains merged into a larger article such as the parent series Swallows and Amazons or the "List of characters in the books of Arthur Ransome". ItsLassieTime (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the Carnegie Medal in Literature for Pigeon Post is a major award. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It should also be pointed out that this was the very first Carnegie Award ever made so the first five books were ineligble and also that Ransome must have been held in considerable respect by his contemporaries. Dabbler (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's not correct to say that the books are ignored by literary critics: they are well covered. Just two from the first page of googlehits: Peter Hunt, prominent critic of children's literature, regularly uses examples from S&A to illustrate his books: an example is Approaching Arthur Ransome, ISBN 0224032887. Another is from Victor Watson in Reading Series Fiction ISBN 041522702X, drawing on the series to explain his points. Shortage of space and time forbids more, but: etc., etc., etc. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be but the Nancy Blackett article doesn't indicate anything about literary criticism and our editor seems entirely unaware of it. That literary criticism must be directed at Nancy Blackett -- not the series in general -- for this article to avoid deletion. ItsLassieTime (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Literary criticism: Fair point. Falling back on Victor Watson Reading Series Fiction again: "In the last two novels of the series, Nancy Blackett is represented as the most important of the older children—no longer a kind of zany clown and instigator of wild enterprises, but an energetic and imaginative supporter of the needs of the younger members of the group. But more of that later." In fact he gives her a chapter to herself. All this still from first work in the first page of googlehits. The fact that the available literary criticism specifically about Nancy hasn't yet been incorporated into the article is an argument for improvement, not deletion. Still keep. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not just "our editor" in Wikipedia is it? Its a collaborative project and no one editor has a monopoly of wisdom or knowledge. Perhaps this furore will bring out other editors who can help improve the article rather than destroy all the work done so far by User:Nancy. Dabbler (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Swallows and Amazons is a book series that has remained constantly in print in the UK since the 1920s. That has also been published in several American, Australian, and Canadian versions. That has been translated in to dozens of languages. That has generated a rainforest of critical commentary as well as being used in the analysis of cultural phenomena [23][24][25][26][27][28] etc etc etc 87.81.180.231 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep Eminently notable as Arthur Ransome's favourite character (so much so that he named his boat after her) and a major plot defining character in the classic, award winning (thanks Old Moonraker for finding that) Swallows and Amazon's series. And just because the lit crit isn't in the article yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Nancy talk 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Nancy, what you don't understand is this: the article fails the WP test for notability in fictional elements. Go here to read for yourself: [29]

Nancy Blackett dismally fails the test. The purpose of the test (among other things) is to prevent editors from filling WP with hundreds of thousands of thousands of articles about every fictional character ever created in the world no matter how insignificant. And you're setting off on that road. I expect if you win this one, you'll be filling the database with stand alone articles about every character in the series. While that is fine for something like the database at The Arthur Ransome Society, it is not fine for WP. Nancy Blackett (character) can be heavily edited and taken to the "Characters" section of Swallows and Amazons. The "Appearances" section is fancruft.

Here is relevant material from the guidelines for easy reference:

Notability of elements within a fictional work

Articles covering elements within a fictional work are generally retained if their coverage meets these three conditions:

1. Importance of the fictional work: To justify articles on individual elements, the fictional work from which they come must have produced significant artistic impact, cultural impact, or general popularity. This is shown when the work (not the element) exceeds the relevant notability guidelines.

2. Role within the fictional work: The element must be an important element, as evidenced by commentary from reliable sources. For example, importance can be established through the use of sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work, such as author commentary, but in any case, bald assertions of importance are insufficient.

3. Real-world coverage: Significant real-world information must exist on the element beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. Examples of real-world coverage include: creative influences, design processes, critical commentary, and cultural reception. Merely listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, their respective release dates, and the names of the production staff is not sufficient.

You haven't established the S&A series produced any significant artistic or cultural impact nor does the parent article. The operative word is significant. Did the series influence other authors to create similar characters or novels? Did Nancy Blackett or the series generate a series of toys, or dolls, party favors, a song, school supplies like pencil cases, or a line of children's clothing? You must tell us. This is artistic and cultural impact. If it did, you must establish this in the article through the use of reliable secondary sources. You must establish that the series enjoyed general popularity through something like sales figures, awards, reviews, published disinterested commentary, etc. While one book from the series apparently won one award, that does not speak to the entire series, only the one book. And it doesn't speak to Nancy Blackett at all.

If you were writing about a television character, for example, you could establish the show's general popularity through the show's ratings. "The show placed in the top-ten for its entire run." That sort of thing. For this series of books, you would need to cite a critical commentary, "Library Journal and The Times Review of Children's Books indicates that Swallows and Amazons was one of the top-selling juvenile series in the first half of the twentieth century." Something like that. You haven't done this. You could use the fact that the series has been in print for many years. This establishes general popularity. And you must mention this in the article. "Nancy Blackett is a fictional character in the juvenile books Swallows and Amazons, a series that has been printed in several languages and has never been out of print in the UK since its first release." Something like that. And you must cite a reliable souce for the statement. You haven't done this and that is one of the reasons the article is up for deletion.

There is no significant real-world coverage of Nancy Blackett -- most importantly, there is no significant coverage by experts in the field of children's literature. Sara Maitland apparently is not an expert in children's literature and what you've cited is essentially a testimonial. "I like the books because I'm a feminist and there are some feminist touches in the books." There is no objective significant critical coverage of Nancy Blackett in the manner of Harry Potter, Nancy Drew, Winnie the Pooh, and dozens of other juvenile fictional characters. The coverage must be that of disinterested parties like book reviewers and experts in the field of children's literature. Not fans. ItsLassieTime (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While this is not one of WP's greatest articles, Nancy seems to be notable enough for her own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The main problem with this article is that it was nominated for a Good Article review too soon and unfortunately attracted negative attention from a reviewer unfamiliar with the topic and its origins. Given more time this article could well be developed along the desired lines. As for notability, Ransome has a literary society devoted to studying his life and works and promoting activities. This has a significant worldwide membership not just in English speaking countries but also Japan, the Czech Republic. Nancy Blackett is considered by far and away Ransome's most popular character. Dabbler (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a bad article from the get go. For one thing, it has a truckload of bulleted OR material. While there is a club for the author, that speaks to the author -- NOT the character Nancy Blackett. Nancy Blackett is NOT notable because Arthur Ransome has a club for himself. While Nancy Blackett may be a popular character with Ransome fans, that popularity must be established in the article through reliable secondary sources which the editor has failed to do and that is why the article has been nominated for deletion. ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The nominator's claim that there is no independent coverage is false. As well as the Carnegie award, there's also the fact that the first book in the series was adapted as a successful feature film. Biographies and documentaries about Ransome's life stress the importance of this particular character. I'd like to assume good faith, but the nominator seems determined to ignore the facts and post walls of text. Keep, keep, keep, AlexTiefling (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Carnegie award and the movie adaptation apply to their respective titles -- NOT to Nancy Blackett. They can be used to establish the notability of the series -- NOT Nancy Blackett. Simply because one book won one award does NOT make Nancy Blackett notable. The editor of the article has a long way to go before making this article a keeper. It needs to be sourced from the work of critics and experts in the field of children's literature NOT fans of the books or anything related to fandom. If there is tons of material about Nancy Blackett in Ransome biographies and documentaries, why has the editor not sourced that material? Even then that material needs to be supported from reliable secondary sources like critics, reviewers, and experts. ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator is pointing out ways in which the article needs be improved and many of these, such as wider sourcing, are valid. However he/she continues to advocate deletion, thus denying editors the chance to do it! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources exist. Several magazines have been published each year, for almost 20 years, by the TARS society. They aren't accessilbe online (that I've seen) but I think we can give this article the benefit of the doubt for that part. Even if they don't, there's enough on the web for an article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the notability does exist and it is a major character.Smallman12q (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So she's a major character in the books. Big deal. If notability exists, then it's the editor's job to establish it. It's not my job (or your's) to run around the web looking for reliable secondary sources and that's why the article is up for deletion -- because the editor has failed to establish notability. What I'm seeing now is the "plot" section being expanded (who cares?, we can learn all about Nancy's character and doings by reading the books) and I notice the referencing being reformatted in an attempt to convince us this article is something important. While the reformatting is a bit of an improvement, few good reliable secondary sources from non-biased critics, reviewers, and experts in the field of children's literature have been cited. One source is OR. But that OR needs to be referenced in a secondary source. Sources have ties to Ransome's publisher Jonathan Cape who naturally has an interest in selling the books and will continue to publish commentary on the books for hungry fans. The whole article is based upon a circle of fans and fandom. (And I wish the editor would get rid of that "Appearances" section -- it is nothing but unsourced fancruft and trivia. The article can be significantly improved by getting rid of that list! And bulleted "lists" like that are a WP no-no anyway! Ditto for that bulleted film section. I can't understand why the film section hasn't been developed. Reviews from critics, etc.) Also, Nancy's origins should have a separate section and not be a part of the Character section. This is the important thing -- get some unbiased, objective sources from reviewers, critics, and experts in the field of children's literature who have not been published by Jonathan Cape or the Arthur Ransome Society. JC and AR are biased. There should be no taint of bias in the sourcing. While JC and AR are OK to use here and there, the article should not depend solely upon them. The meat and potatoes should be sourced from unbiased, main stream sources that establish Nancy's place and importance in children's literature, her influence upon children's literature and culture, etc. 19:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)ItsLassieTime (talk)
  • ';Comment - Please don't !vote twice. You seem to have a mistaken impression of the Wikipedia editing process. You keep referring to what 'the editor' should do. Go and read WP:OWN: we are all editors, and any of us can improve this article.AlexTiefling (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, did I !vote twice? I scanned the article before I voted and missed it. I'll take your word for it and delete my !vote here. I think people know how i feel anyway. ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assumed that as nominator, you were considered to have voted when you nominated. I apologise if I've confused matters with this assumption. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that even if we do find original non-secondary sources, they will be unacceptable if they happen to be published by the same publisher as Ransome's books (Jonathan Cape). This is an unreasonable stipulation. No commentary on Harry Potter will ever be published by Bloomsbury? Macmillan can't publish books on Kipling?. Lets be fair, publishers publish books that they think will make money and authors may approach a publisher that they think will be sympathetic because they already have a list with items that are similar or connected. Dabbler (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor should investigate the lesbian angle hinted at by one critical commentator instead of sweeping it under the rug. This would bring an interesting 21st century color to the article which now reminds me of musty old, worm eaten wood pulp pages and faded, tattered dust jackets. How many of Nancy's child fans matured into lesbians? Is Sara Maitland a lesbian? A lesbian investigation into Nancy Blackett could bring a nice updated angle to the article. Please pursue it. ItsLassieTime (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's really not the purpose of an AfD discussion for the nominator to propose esoteric lines of research for other editors. I also don't think that books lack proper independence just because they have the same publisher. (Compare, for example, the number of books about JRR Tolkein and his work which are published by Harper-Collins.) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yes, I realized that too late and moved the suggestion to the talk page of the article. Thanks Alex for being on your toes over that one! Whew! What the article needs is some sourcing outside the Arthur Ransome/Amazons and Swallows universe, especially sourcing from experts in children's literature. I don't believe this article should be sourced entirely from material produced by Ransome's publisher. It taints the article. It needs sourcing from non-Jonathan Cape/non-Arthur Ransome Society experts in children literature who have evalutated Nancy and placed her in perspective. While the JC and AR references are OK, they should be supported and enhanced by material from college and university journals and presses, children's lit reviews and journals. If Nancy is notable (and that's the issue) then college and university presses, kid's lit jouranls, and others will have something to say about her. WP asks this in order to prevent the overzealous from creating un- and poorly sourced articles about every single fictional character in the world since the dawn of civilization. I hope you understand this. And yes, I would expect WP articles about Tolkein and his universe to have some sourcing independent of his publisher. That's not an unreasonable expectation. ItsLassieTime (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Right near the top of the Google Books results for the article title we find this whole chapter in a book published by Routledge about the subject. Could I suggest that the nominator withdraw this absurd nomination rather than carrying on flogging a dead horse? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shiver me timbers! Lookie what ye've found! ONE non-JC or TARS source! Avast, me hearties! Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum! This source was part of the Nancy Blackett article at one time but for some reason it was scuttled. I'm surprised others haven't mentioned this chapter. I scanned it and didn't see a ton of significant stuff about Nancy Blackett but as I noted, I only scanned it. Let's see if the article's editors can glean something substantial from it! Whee! X marks the spot and I think we may have hit the jackpot here! ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This unseemly glee may be misplaced: is the nominator actually bothering to read anybody else's stuff? This chapter was mentioned at "Literary criticism", above, in direct reply to one of his/her points. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same thought occurred to me. The nominator's approach and methods seem very peculiar to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does NOT estabish Nancy Blackett's notability with reliable secondary sources. WP poses such a difficult test for character articles in order to avoid having thousands of poorly sourced character articles dumped here. Fans will be fans and they will dump every single fictional character in the world at WP if there are no "rules". Let's all be good WP editors and either improve the article with RS or admit that Nancy doesn't cut the mustard. I'm rooting for Nancy, but unless this article is significantly improved with reliable secondary sources that establish Nancy's notability, it must walk the plank. ItsLassieTime (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thrilled to see some participants in this discussion have taken on the Nancy Blackett article and have improved it greatly. A complete make-over from what it was when posted to GAN! I believe interested editors will continue to improve the article, and there is no reason to continue this discussion. As nominator of the article's deletion, I recommend that this discusion be closed at once with a Keep for Nancy Blackett (character). Good luck and keep up the good work! ItsLassieTime (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been improved. Have you considered withdrawing your nomination?Smallman12q (talk) 13:44, 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 keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of quaternions[edit]

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

If all of the nonsense in this article were removed, so little of it would be left that it would make very little sense to have it as a separate article, rather than as a section in the "Quaternion" article. A. di M. (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There has been a lot of nonsense written about quaternions over time. That's why it is notable. The Quaternion and Classical Hamiltonian quaternions articles are big enough in dealing with the actual subject matter and as pointed out the subject has changed in emphasis quite considerably. Dmcq (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense can be here if it's notable provided that it is noted as being nonsense. I agree that we could have an article about the history of quaternions, but it would have to be written from scratch, from reliable sources. This article isn't even a good start. It sounds like advocacy of quaternions and ridiculising of "modern" vectors. Just take a look at the talk page of the article for an idea of its problems. --A. di M. (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The history of the quaternions is a notable enough subject to merit its own article, much of which is not about the mathematics of the quaternions, but is more sociological. Such material would imbalance the Quaternion article. I agree that the present article has some nonsense which should be cut and some nonsense which should be better sourced. None of this adds up to any case for deletion whatsoever - indeed the latter outcome would result in the removal of relevant sourced content. Geometry guy 19:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some history of the development of this article is important. At one point there was only one article, which expanded to three. The classical quaternion article is the one that I would like to spend more time working on, however I think that there needs to be a place for the in depth history of quaternions. So far I have yet to see an in depth list of material which is 'nonsense'. Rather than deleting this article I think the solution to the problem is to improve it. I would like to keep the classical quaternion article about the historical 19th century mathematical development of the subject. Part of the problem might be that a lot of the content for the article was material that was cut out of the Classical Quaternions article and put there because it didn't really have any place else to go at the time, when it was decided to divide the content of one article into three. Perhaps me dividing the original material which every one seemed in favor of at the time, and then neglecting the history has had an unfortunate effect of this subject not receiving the in depth treatment it deserves. The original idea for the article was that it was supposed to cover the who and what subject of quaternions which has a number of interesting people and interesting turns as well. Renewed interest in the subject of quaternions in the 21st century makes their sad history especially through the 21st century much more relevant. I have a few sources I can add for some of the material, but right now I am working on H theorem.Hobojaks (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 02:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 02:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, in my view there is a substantial amount that has no place in this article, or indeed any article; and I have consistently communicated that view to the article's main author. On the other hand, there is also a substantial amount that does deserve to stay -- the guide to the nineteenth century language is useful, as in the chance to take a more in depth look at the history of quaternions, and the comings and goings in the interest in them, to a much greater degree than we do in the IMO already getting very crowded and congested main article on quaternions. So, IMO radical pruning is needed, but quite definitely keep. Jheald (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a case of editing and improvement rather than deletion. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am not an expert on the subject, but unless this is entirely WP:OR, it is an article that we need. It is correctly flagged for rescue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For a mathematical object, quaternions have a long and complicated history. It's not possible to give detailed coverage of that history in the main quaternions article without overbalancing the article away from the mathematical aspects of quaternions. The current page may not be ideal, but deleting it is not the right solution. Ozob (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I took the liberty of cutting down the number of time periods. So now the period from 1929 to 1955 is a single period in which the history of quaternions reflects the fact that nothing happened. The sad fact is that many school kids today have little concept of history, so I think it is important to put some important world events into a chronology to provide context. If it is disputed that Einstein became the defacto leader of the relativists in this period I can provide citations with ease. Also I have proposed that some material from sections 5 and 6 be merged into the main article. Questions about "what" like what is the difference between vectors and vectors belongs in the main article and a new section on that subject has been created since section 5 came into existence. Hodge duels, that belongs in two places, who was Hodge, and when did he live, when did he have his idea about duals, how did this contribute to a modern synthesis, these things in a not to technical form mind you belong in the history part of the article.Hobojaks (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete Unsourced, unsourceable, and nonsense. We could use a history of quaternions, but not this one; have any of the keep !voters read down to 1929 to 1955 a dark time for quaternions and the world? The implication that Herbert Goldstein invented the relation of Heisenberg's for 2x2 matrices is sheer ignorance. If this is kept, please notify me; I will support all efforts to reduce this out of its present condition, starting with a redirect to quaternions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DELETE says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." I agree that the present content is not very good. But the page can be, and ought to be, improved instead of deleted. Ozob (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But can this be improved? Take out the partisanship and the irrelevancies, and what is left? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect. Ozob (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There was a period of time when quaternions fell into disuse. I don't understand if you mean to dispute that fact. This should be fairly easy to document. I think you do make a good point in that past versions of this article listed multiple time periods were little or nothing happened in the field of quaternions. Now this period of inactivity extends all the way to the start of the space age in 1958. It can certainly be well documented that quaternions found applications in space craft attitude control. I think you do make a good point that in an earlier version of the article it basically gave a number of time periods when nothing happened with quaternions. I also agree that Goldstein's book in general is not about ideas that he invented. Instead his book is an important exposition of other peoples older ideas. Goldstein does mention quaternions in a foot note. The important historical event here is that someone is talking about quaternions. If this section is poorly worded to the extent that it suggests that Goldstein was suggesting so sort of new idea, I agree that this needs to be fixed. I am not sure if you mean to dispute the idea that a quaternion can be written as a two by two matrix, if you are going to dispute that fact the place to do it is in the main article where there is a section dedicated to that point of view. However that Goldstein mentions quaternions in his book and uses the matrix representation of a quaternion in a number of sections which he dutifully represents with the letter Q is a verifiable and note worthy fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobojaks (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now). The article deserves a second chance. In particular, it needs reliable sources. Ulner (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on future redirect: It doesn't matter if this article is deleted or not. If it ain't deleted, I'm just going to replace the whole thing with a redirect to quaternion. Maybe there's something legitimate here that isn't already there (as indicated by G-Guy), but I don't see it. I'll take a look before deleting the whole thing though. --C S (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I fully support C S. The present material digresses very far from being a history of quaternions. And the rest is already in quaternion (which also needs inline references on this). So nothing worth saving, in my opinion. To make a new fresh start: reliable sources to the history of quaternions do exist. See e.g.: Conway & Smith, "On Quaternions and Octonions", 2003, ISBN 1568811349; Crowe, "A History of Vector Analysis", Dover, 1994, ISBN 0486679101; van der Waerden, Mathematics Magazine 49(5), 1976, 227-234; etc. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can't say that everyone else's opinion doesn't matter, since even if we keep it you'll delete it anyway. That isn't how consensus works. And I say Keep, since there is enough valid information to warrant its own article, and you couldn't merge all of that information onto another page. Dream Focus 07:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to a certain Wikipedian, "Consensus means a handful of people around at the time will decide everything, since the overwhelming majority of people will never get involved in any AFD discussion. Most articles nominated for deletion seem to be nominated and voted on by the same people, none of which were elected. If a different group were around that day, the consensus could shift the opposite way. You almost never have every single person agree on whether something should be deleted or allowed to remain, and they all have different reasons for trying to get rid of something, often based on their personal beliefs on what wikipedia should be, or their interpretation of the various incomplete and often changing policies."
    • In any case, I'm not saying anything like you imagine. Once someone like Pmanderson strips away all the OR junk (which a couple people have been too polite to a fault to have done themselves), we will see what's left. If it's a crap article, it'll just get redirected as the normal course of things to a better place. --C S (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My understanding is that the question at issue here is whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on History of quaternions. The answer to that question, I think, is obviously yes, so obviously that I think this may fall under WP:SNOW. The current article is very bad, but that is a separate problem, and is not a good reason for deletion and for the subsequent 6-month ban on creating a new article on the history of quaternions. The correct response to a very bad article is to fix the article. If that means burning it to the ground and starting over—and in this case it might—so be it. —Dominus (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the issue is whether this article is a contribution to that end. By Dominus' argument, any semiliterate piece of OR (on a topic that would be worthwhile) would stay indefinitely. There is no six-month ban on a different article on the history of quaternions, and deletion (which is burning it to the ground, so it can be restarted) is one of the best ways to encourage one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That reminds me: I was going to look into this 6-month ban thing, since I had never heard of such a thing. I'm glad to see Dominus was mistaken. Yes, indeed, it would be a bad thing if nobody could start a proper article on the history of quaternions for 6 months.
    • I don't know about "correct response" being fixing the article (although I might be misinterpreting what you mean by "fix"). There are many articles on suitable topics that are deleted just because they are too troublesome (either there aren't any subject matter experts to do a halfway-decent job, repeated SPAs promoting OR, etc). If the title seems like it would be useful, often a redirect/merge occurs instead. There is no prejudice against recreating a good version. --C S (talk) 21:44, 4 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 intentional vandalism. This isn't quite patent nonsense. This is subtle nonsense, that might not be obvious to everyone. The content of the article contains grammatically correct sentences, but as noted by Andyjsmith on Talk:Visualiation of memory bus, they have no actual meaning, stringing together as they do random technical terms. This is just incoherent gibberish, and as Andyjsmith further notes, there are computer programs that will actually generate such text.

For the non-technical editor, the big clue is the names at the top: "Barry Douface and Adolf Penhead". Clearly these are "doofus" and "pinhead". Andyjsmith performed a good-faith Google Scholar search for these names, but even if they were the names of real people, that wouldn't be a reason to keep this nonsense, or a reason to think that this was anything but vandalism. All assumptions of good faith are negated by what Memory bus (talk · contribs) writes on the talk pages. Clearly, by xyr reaction, this is intentional vandalism, and xe intends to keep up the pretense as long as possible.

By the way: Even if this were a genuine paper, which it clearly isn't, it still wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopaedia, not an academic journal. But that would not be a matter for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstructing SMPs[edit]

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

Contested prod; article is original research, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. slakr\ talk / 12:52, 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 as intentional vandalism. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deconstructing SMPs. Uncle G (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visualiation of memory bus[edit]

Visualiation of memory bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; article is original research, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. slakr\ talk / 12:52, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GeForce GTX 300[edit]

GeForce GTX 300 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. PROD removed when a reference was added, but it is only rumour: the product will be launched, "claim video card makers", and another site says it is coming "according to sources" but NVidia "cannot comment on unannounced products." This is OK for gossip on trade websites, but per WP:V an encyclopedia article must be based on a reliable source. Can be recreated if and when there is one, but for now delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's too much speculation here to warrant a full article at this point. fuzzy510 (talk) 22:52, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 08:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paulaseer[edit]

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

No assertion that this person is world renowned (in third party sources). Google suggests there's only a limited amount of primary resources. DFS454 (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete notability not asserted and my own searches have not come up with any reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G11 "He has incomprehensible Divine Power." I think that counts as promotional. Ray (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep Article has improved dramatically. Ray (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - a search on the full name turns up a few references; they are not from many underlying sources, but notability is certainly asserted, and I think there is a possibility of developing a sourced article if experienced editors help the (new, SPA) author. JohnCD (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is asserted, but assertions of notability are only a factor for speedy deletion. (They prevent it.) This is AFD, where it is determined whether a subject really is notable, based upon the depths and provenances of sources, not based upon claims and assertions. Whilst I like you have no objection to a properly sourced article with verifiable content, we differ in that I think that there is zero content here to keep around in the meantime until that happens. Wikipedia should not have this content indefinitely until someone gets around to writing a good stub. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any biography that states that the subject has "incomprehensible Divine power" in its very first revision is not off to a good start. If this were a biography of a living person, it would be swiftly zapped for making extraordinary claims (only thinly veiled behind weasel words such as the "many Christians … some … a minority" phrasing) without any sources at all to back them up. But the fact that this isn't a living person only means that our policies do not swiftly apply, not that they don't apply at all. None of the extraordinary claims in the article, such as that this person was "incarnated" and then "ascended", are verifiable on their faces, and would be immediately challenged and removed by most people in the normal course of editing. Taking out all of the contestable content pending sources would leave an article with zero content, however. If this article is not completely rewritten (even as simply a good stub) based upon sources, therefore, it should be deleted. There is not even a good stub here, at the moment. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extraordinary claims require exraordinary sourcing. This article has zero sources and a severe POV. Edward321 (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Keep based on Brianyoumans' work on finding sources and cleaning up the page. Edward321 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page consists of little more than preaching; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Delete without prejudice. (In fact, I routinely speedily delete blatant proselytization under the spam criterion.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the original author has restored the proselytizing content, which I have removed. In any case, I am changing my vote to abstain. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have just done a general cleanup, reducing the article to what seems to be biographical facts. There seem to be sources available on this guy (see this article in a scholarly book, for instance). He seems to be fairly notable. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a great clean-up, but he still seems like an obscure figure with very limited third-party sourcing, the scholarly article above not-withstanding. 7triton7 (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources found by a Google Books search, including books published by Eerdmans[30][31], Gollancz[32], Cambridge University Press[33] etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 08:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Cranmer[edit]

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

Bob Cranmer has not demonstrated notability. The closest thing to notability would be this incident: "As being a member of the first Republican majority in Allegheny County government since the Great Depression, Bob is primarily known for his famous "split" with his Republican running mate Larry Dunn and subsequent governing alliance with Democrat Mike Dawida." Here are some articles covering the split. Regardless of this event, I don't believe that Bob Cranmer is notable. There also seems to have a conflict of interest issue as the author is Cranmr (talk · contribs). Lastly, Cranmer does not fall into WP:POLITICIAN as he falls under second-level sub-national politician (as the former County Commissioner of Allegheny County) when first-level sub-national is the cut off. OlYellerTalktome 10:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do no think that anyone has claimed that Gary Coleman's notability is based on his career in politics. Can you point out for me (completely for my own benefit and future editing) where a policy is marked as an inclusive standard as opposed to an exclusive one? I guess I don't see how it's different if WP:POLITICIAN would be the only reason that a subject would be notable (theoretically, not in this case). My talk page would probably be the best place to reply to that request as it's just for me and not part of the discussion of this article. Thanks. 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlYeller21 (talk • contribs)
I can respond here, since it expands upon my reasoning. I'm agreeing with you that you are correct that a "second-level sub-national politician" is not notable by itself. But here, Cranmer's notability would be based on substantial coverage by independent reliable sources, not by virtue of his resume. WP:POLITICIAN is a policy of convenience that allows editors to sidestep the debate of whether a particular lieutenant governor has had that level of press coverage (which would otherwise be a problem when we're talking about 19th century politicians from states without century-old newspaper archives available on line), but it doesn't mean a politician who doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN automatically gets deleted. THF (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Made some general improvements to the article as part of Article Rescue Squadron. Magnetic Rag (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per THF above. Referenced news items are now in the article, and subject is clearly notable, though the article got off to a rocky start. Give this article some time, and it will be worth keeping. MuffledThud (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has received significant coverage, and the article now demonstrates this. decltype 20:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:LUC really coming into play, but someone should do a WP:BLP check. THF (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep improved article as meeting WP:PEOPLE even if weak for WP:POLITICIAN. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:46, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 07:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dicken[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC as in no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Also I think the motive here is to promote his new book. DFS454 (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC, though might meet #5 because of his status as "Emeritius Professor" at University of Manchester [[35]]. I cant tell what that title means. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - As Kraftlos stated, "Honorary Fellow" might fall under #5 as "Distinguished Professor" but common sense tells me not to agree with that in this case. Also, the article claims attempts to claim notability by his book Global Shift. I did find a listing for Global Shift at the British Library which could prove the book to be notable under WP:N. Although the book may be notable, this doesn't prove an author to be notable per WP:CREATIVE. The article also claims that the book is rated number 2 on the Amazon bestseller list for Economic Geography. I've done some searching and can only just barely find the book on amazon.com at all. The paperback is rated 615,458 while the hardcover is rated 2,644,134. I'm also unable to find where Amazon has an Economic Geography section at all. Again, my senses are telling me that this is a WP:ADVERT for his book as DFS454 also stated.OlYellerTalktome 11:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote per Cunard's finding of notability under WP:BIO. OlYellerTalktome 22:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The article's title had been on my watchlist before it was created, and I had been wondering why there hadn't been an article about the author of "Global Shift", which is featured quite prominently in my university's (which isn't a British one) library's textbook section. It is an important book in economic geography, having been re-edited 4 times. Of course it's not rated highly on Amazon, it's from 1986. "Location in space" is another standard textbook co-written by him, and its third edition was translated into German. This article, however, doesn't do his notability justice and lacks any reliable sources. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Btw, I've collected some quotes. Andrew Leyshon (Progress in Human Geography 1994 (18), pp. 110), then lecturer at the University of Hull, wrote on the occasion of the second edition of "Global Shift": "The astonishing rate at which the towering piles of this book are reduced to ground level in our university bookshop by voracious swarms of undergraduate geographers testifies to the fact that this is an extremely popular textbook." Kris Olds (Progress in Human Geography 2004 (28), p. 507) of the University of Wisconsin-Madison claims that it has sold many tens of thousands of copies and is an 'obligatory passage point' in the subdiscipline of economic geography. Nigel Thrift describes the fifth edition on its backcover as ‘not just recommended but essential’. So at least the book is quite notable. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm currently a university student (at one of the largest universities in the world /puke), I can attest that I've seen many books go from thousands in stock to nonel with people who still need the book. Alas, they're required text for major/popular courses offered by the university. I guess at that point the book would fall under Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_books:WP-Academic Books which is incredibly vague about what passes and what doesn't but states that it should come down to common sense. Is there any other info you could provide that might, more concretely, prove notability?OlYellerTalktome 16:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, on the supposedly picky German Wikipedia, having been a regular university professor and the author of two standard works would be totally sufficient, and a musician selling tens of thousands of records would easily be notable, so apparently I can't just rely on my common sense in this case. Other book reviews (there's quite a handful) call "Global Shift" a ‘classic’ or ‘the definitive text on globalization’, but finding anything more concrete especially about the person himself is a tough task... --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:24, 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 redirect to Steam (content delivery) . MBisanz talk 07:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SteamID[edit]

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

No citations; no assertion of notability of any kind. I see nothing of encyclopedic value in this article. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:30, 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. MBisanz talk 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too Beautiful to Live[edit]

Too Beautiful to Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

low rated evening radio show in mid-sized market Notabilitypatrol (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some objective evidence must be provided why this article is warranted. How do we determine if a radio show deserves an encyclopedia article about it? Surely it should meet at least one of the following criteria?

Audience Reach - Is the show in a Top 10 Market or syndicated to multiple markets?

radio show is in market #14 - no syndication

Ratings - is the show highly rated?

radio show is #15 just in its time slot (7:00PM) in-market meaning there are 14 shows above it, significantly lower in overall market ratings

Recognition - Has the show received or been nominated for national or regional radio awards?

no, none

Host - is the host famous for his non-radio activities (e.g. Billy Bush, Jerry Doyle, Dennis Miller)?

no

Longevity - is the radio show an institution due to time on air?

show is less than 2 years old

Notoriety - Did the show break an important news story? Has it been involved in significant scandal? Has it set precedent in a FCC rulemaking case?

no

Publicity - Has the show received significant coverage in significant media (e.g. newspapers or magazines with 1 million + circ or network television)?

no

If a radio program can't even get a green light on ONE of the above criteria, how can an article be justified? Notabilitypatrol (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I vote to delete this article. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - While I was initially inclined to agree with you; technically a topic need only meet the WP:GNG to have an article, other criteria are merely alternative not exclusive. This topic has coverage from three reliable independent sources as demonstrated in the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, where are you getting these criteria? I don't see any guideline like this. --'Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the discussion that's occurred in AfD for other local radio programs, there is wiki-precedent that a more informal, or colloquial, method of judgment can be used. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, if a topic meets WP:GNG then its notable. You can't go around using some undrafted notability guideline and expect people to take it seriously. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if this is to be deleted then I would prefer another user without some agenda against the subject do it (just as we prefer people without conflicts of interest to create articles). Also, Notabilitypatrol, the New York Times has a circulation of just barely over 1 million; your self-imposed criteria are clearly too strict, probably by design. You omitted the podcast popularity, which is very strong. You have apparently discounted all radio shows in anything other than the top ten markets; and your criteria for the host are utterly out of bounds, I wasn't aware we required people to be famous in more than one field of work to have a Wikipedia article. --Golbez (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: this user has a POV regarding the article. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that is true then it makes two of us, does it not? I also note that the nominator has suggested users be banned for disagreeing with his AFD votes: [36] --Golbez (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologize to the community for having to be dragged into this. I'm suffering WP:HA from this user that has now, apparently, spilled over into this forum as well. I regret any inconvenience this may cause participants. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kraftlos and Golbez fuzzy510 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm extremely appaled by the way you have gone about trying to go about this nomination, Notabilitypatrol, and many of your efforts in the past week on articles relating to KIRO. First on a previous nomination you launched a sockpuppet investigation against everyone who was against your opinion in the Ron & Don Show AfD, including me when there absolutely no evidence at all there was no socking, including accusing me of socking based on one vote and voting only on merits. Then you have gone and made edits to the Luke Burbank article that are in a word, appaling and easily violate BLP. Now you try to form a nomination against this show based on self-created criteria that basically say that if you're not in a Top 10 market, your show doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
I am voting to keep this show only on the merits of notability and reach. It doesn't need to be on the air for a long time. It doesn't need a profile in Time magazine. Your cite that it's the lowest rated program in its timeslot is at best a reach as you have no sourcing to the numbers and KIRO is among the top five stations in Seattle sign-on to sign-off (plus I'm getting the sense you're playing with the numbers to exclude public radio, ethnic radio and lower rated stations with formats which don't get alot of listeners). Based on the fact alone that KIRO is at least making an effort to program an original local radio show in primetime in a major market that doesn't revolve around a music countdown, syndicated or pre-recorded programming is notable enough, plus the promotion and distribution of the show via podcasting and social networking. The article has been much improved since I last read it Tuesday evening and features good references now.
What I suggest to you is if you feel gets are getting heated, to walk away from the article for a few days, settle down and keep your cool. Nobody is harassing you or stalking you at all. We vote on the merits of each individual article, it is not to spite you. Editing at times can be a tenuous process and I can even admit to feeling stressed out over my editing at times. But at the end of the day, it's just a project. Don't get stressed over this, please. Nate • (chatter) 01:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE ... article is superfluous as long as there is an article about the host ... the two could easily be merged - WHY IS THIS ARTICLE EVEN EXIST? also, what's up wtih all the personal attacks just because someone has nominated an article for deletion - there is room for disagreement and discussion - you people need to grow up ... 207.102.78.164 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks? I don't see any here, are people yelling at each other on their talk pages? Anyway, the merge discussion doesn't need to be held at AfD; it can be discussed after this discussion is closed. This should be a keep because it meets WP:GNG, period. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - yeah, right, WP:GNG establishes a requisite of SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE --- an article in a little weekly newspaper in Tinytown, USA could never meet anyone's idea of SIGNIFICANT ... I'm not saying, as the originator claims, that SIGNIFICANT = X# circulation, however, clearly some little weekly rag with a 50,000 circ doesn't meet an objective definition of being a SIGNIFICANT source ... and I see a lot of personal attacks here 207.102.78.164 (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the Seattle Times is a daily newspaper with 215,000 weekday circulation with Seven Pulitzer prizes. Seattle Magazine has monthly distribution of 70,000 and has an established reputation. Its true that The Stranger is a far-left weekly rag, but it's only one of three sources.
It's disingenuous to go for the weakest source and build an argument from that. And belittling Seattle as "Tinytown, USA" is not a valid argument. Now where are these personal attacks? Let me see an example. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that the word "significant" in WP:N refers to the coverage, not the sources (ie not circulation). --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the Seattle Times website --- they have an article on a Wildlife police officer named Tom Sharped. Based on the criteria you've just stretched to fit your definition I'll be making a wikipedia entry about him really damn soon. --- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008798596_poachers01m.html ...
How bout the reference to the show from Ira Glass on This American Life?

207.102.78.164 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: 207.102.78.164, based on your comments so far, and assuming you are unfamiliar with Wikpedia policies, I would request that you please have a look at the following: WP:CIVILITY, WP:POINT, and, with respect to these[37][38][39][40]WP:CANVASS--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if you're not able to address the content of my point don't simply resort to flood templating - it's rude and non-productive to this discussion ... THANKS 207.102.78.164 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, while Kraftlos is correct that large circulation is not a requirement for a reliable source, it may be appropriate to note that as of June 2008 The Stranger had audited circulation of 89,535[41].--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info Arxiloxos! Actually, its not rude and it's very relevant that you're canvassing users that you think would be sympathetic to your opinion. It's not an honest way to participate in AfD and its a violation of policy. BTW, I've never listened to the show. Just because I'm from Seattle doesn't make me biased; actually the fact that I studied Journalism in Seattle would mean that I'm pretty well versed in the reliability of local sources. To address your point about the wildlife officer, topics can be notable and still have a consensus against article creation; it seems to me like you're invoking a slippery slope falacy, erroneously making a dramatic argument from imagined consequences. You also seem to have something against Seattle, but your prejudices are really not relevant to whether or not the subject is notable, you need to keep your opinions to yourself and deal only with facts of the matter at hand. Finally, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the number of votes on this page is not the determining factor, its the quality of the arguments that are made; so getting other editors here that agree with you probably isn't the best way to make your point. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good info for everyone here, User:Kraftlos I can't defend 207's actions in canvassing sympathetic editors so I won't try, but he may have been inspired by Arxiloxos doing the exact same thing. Arxiloxos left this message on the Talk of Golbez, who has stated he is a member of the article topic's fan club:
  • If you aren't already doing so, may I ask you also to keep a watch on the related doings at Luke Burbank? Most obliged,--Arxiloxos (talk)
I'll be happy to monitor Arxiloxos and Golbez for additional policy violations if the community likes and lodge complaints and requests for investigation as appropriate? I'd rather not, though, as I'm currently being wikistalked by User:Golbez, so if someone else would be open to volunteering it would be much appreciated. Thanks, gang! - 00:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notabilitypatrol (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Delete: Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail." --WP:N All three sources cover the subject in detail. None of the sources on the page are affiliated with the radio station or the show. How is this insufficient? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Radio station appears to have a limited market. Maybe if this was a nationally syndicated program it would be different. JamesBurns (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP TBTL has big following on itunes, with many listeners outside the Seattle area.
There is no guideline that states Wikipedia only has articles on notable nationally syndicated radio programs. Any topic that passes WP:GNG can have an article. Is there a particular reason other than its lack of syndication? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kraftlos - at this point it's very clear you're not substantively adding to this discussion. Simply dismissing everyone's well-versed arguments for deletion as "incorrect" because they don't meet your reading of the WP:GNG guidelines is only serving to stack your position by chasing off everyone who disagrees with you and flooding this page with words tagged to your UserID. I would, politely, for the good of wikipedia, ask you consider taking a few steps back from this article at present and consider engaging your talents with another topic. Thanks. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Suitably referenced and well-written article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just out of curiosity, why did Notabilitypatrol (talk · contribs) go from posting a "Great Job Working Together, Gang!" message on the talkpage on Feb 24, to nominating its deletion on the 28th? It seems a bit strange, there doesn't seem to be a logical progression for his rapid change in opinion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Kraftlos - prior to Feb. 24 the article in question suffered two things (1) it was 4 pages long with two source citations and read as a fan club article, and, (2) the topic of the article may have exhorted his fan club to "patrol" the article which resulted in a spate of vandalism from first time users and the posting of many "cheerleader" statements. Thanks to myself, User:Orangemike, User:SoWhy and many others, we were able to cull it to its current length of 4 sentences and add acceptable citations. This was done at great tribulation to ourselves as, in my case, I suffered death threats being posted by fan club members to my userpage, User:Golbez (a member of this topic's fan club) is now personally wikistalking me, etc. However, I think if anything it has steeled our determination to make sure wikipedia is not denegrated to fan club forum.
To your second question, on further evaluation I simply changed my mind and came to the new opinion that it does not merit a wikipedia entry at all. Thanks for your inquiry. If you'd like additional information from the sordid back-story of this article, please don't hesitate to contact me personally. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to continue accusing me of wikistalking, then bring formal charges. If not, then it's clear you're only using these baseless accusations to further your goals. As for the fan club, I am not nor have I ever been a member of any fan club pertaining to TBTL, Luke Burbank, or the greater Seattle-Tacoma-Burnaby Metroplex. --Golbez (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I prefer not to bother the admins with these petty, personal issues you may have. I have asked you politely not interact with me and am content to leave it at that. (2) Are you going to stick with that line or do you want me to drag up the link to where you said you are a "TBTL 11"? PLEASE - stop lying. There is a record of everything on wikipedia, these fibs just distract from the conversation, and serve to confuse and befuddle. (But, I imagine, that's your intent in furtherance of your very obvious and transparent objectives.) [I apologize to all the well-intentioned people participating in this important discussion. I have never seen such a concentrated attempt to manipulate and sew ill-will in my time on wikipedia as what has occurred as a result of 2 users and numerous socks here vis a vis the article in question. I am at a complete loss as to why they are doing this and how truly crass one's agenda can be to generate such a disruption here.) -- Notabilitypatrol (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An "eleven" is the significant other of a "ten". It has absolutely nothing to do with being a "member of a fan club". As for socks, again, cite your evidence, or shut up. I note your last sockpuppet investigation was closed as being laughable. --Golbez (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay - convenient how you didn't mention that oh so distinctive connection, huh? You're the BF of a fan club member (the same fan club who have left death threats on userpages of those who disagree with them and engaged in mass vandalism of the article, I will add). Intersting you didn't feel the need to mention that until I pointed it out? As for socks, here's just one example of one of your fellow fan club members getting blocked for socking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radiocop. There are more, just let me know how many you want to see. I also notice in the edits, yet another newly registered user tried to vandalize the article today! What is wrong with the members of your fan club (or the members of the club of spouses of the fan club, if you prefer)? Also, appreciate you felt the need to continue with your well-established pattern of personal attacks (to wit: As for socks, again, cite your evidence, or shut up. I note your last sockpuppet investigation was closed as being laughable.) Thanks. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I think we've entered the realm of personal attacks. I'd like to remind all of you to remain WP:CIVIL and if you have an complaints against a specific user, please take it to the appropriate channel. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should like to remind you and your compatriots of the same thing. Especially your pets User:Golbez and User:Arxiloxos, since they're among the biggest violators here. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break[edit]

Status of the Discussion - It looks like the votes are about tied: delete versus retain. As Kraftlos pointed out, however, it's not about votes it's about the merits of the points. I judge the merits of the delete voters to be superior in this discussion but - in the event anyone disagrees - am happy to accept the binding decision of a mutually acceptable third-party. Perhaps we should discuss a possible candidate now? (no socks or disruptionists in this convo, please) - Notabilitypatrol (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as it stood the vote was 3 for Delete, 6 for keep at the time the above comment was posted Goldman60 (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, though I think it stirred things up more than it helped. I think that despite the history of this page, it can still be maintained as an encyclopedic topic. If you're tired of policing it, I can take help out. I've added it to my watchlist and I'm going to rollback anything that gets added without a source. We also can talk about merging if the article doesn't get better in a month or so. At this point, since it meets WP:GNG, I don't think deletion is appropriate, nor do I think we have a consensus for deletion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you'd be real impartial considering you've been working overttime to nit-pick every commenter here until you manage to chase them away, and simply don't respond to cases where the fan club complains about a P&P violation that they in fact have been doing themselves (see above: re campaigning). BTW - simply repeating "it meets WP:GNG" over and over again doesn't make it true. It does NOT meet WP:GNG. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about your WP:HA and frankly don't care about your dispute. It doesn't have anything to do with this article. You (or any other delete voter) have yet to give me a convincing argument from the inclusion guidelines as to why this doesn't meet them. Until you directly address my points, I'm going to be forced to bring it up, over and over. Because you're aren't engaging my points, you're just repeating the same line over and over. This is an AfD, I expect that we would discuss notability since those are the grounds that this proposal has started on. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you have not (1) bothered to directly address any of our points, or (2) give us a convincing argument. If you think a good way to prevail in an argument is just to spamflood the page I guess you win. I have no interest in continuing this conversation in light of such poor behavior by the self-crowned King of Wikipedia. Goodbye. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - still no evidence of notability outside its own small media market. If this were a Seattle or Washington-state wiki, that would be sufficient; but as it is, this simply is non-notable content. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This claim doesn't hold water. There is no requirement for national attention. Just coverage in reliable independent sources, which has been demonstrated. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what you deem "significant coverage", I guess. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not as subjective as you might think: WP:N says "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail." It doesn't have anything to do with profile of the sources themselves, just that there's more than a passing mention. We have three feature-length articles in reliable sources on the topic. Its notable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You're making this up as you go now. As was stated above by another user, the Seattle Times today covered a random wildlife agent in detail. Does he deserve a wikipedia article? No. The criteria exist but they require people to THINK and use common sense. Not just pound on a drum until you've managed to deafen and chase everyone away. Flooding this page with copy-and-paste arguments targeted against every single person who has the audacity to disagree with you belies the underlying fallacy of the no-delete argument. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? That is most certainly not an assumption of good faith, what exactly are you accusing me of? The text I'm quoting is right in the guideline, haven't you read WP:N?
With regard to the Seattle Times, it is a large metropolitan newspaper with a long history of fact-checking and has received multiple Pulitzer prizes for their coverage. I'm not sure what method you're using to determine a sources reliability, but hearsay is not a valid method. Nor is stating that because they chose to do a profile on a wildlife police officer that somehow its no longer reliable; every city newspaper does profiles, What's your point here? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion." To me, this is the kind of topic which a reputable local publication may cover in detail without rising to the level of notability on a national scale. If one of these articles were from a non-local publication, that would be another matter altogether. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously you said nothing mattered, as long as it was published. Now you're trotting out the Times' Pulitzer Prizes. If you believe the former, the latter would not be necessary. So can we now discount the Stranger because it has no Pulitzers? Don't bother replying. Since you haven't had the courtesy to direclty address any of our arguments and your apparent goal here is to simply spam-flood this page until you overwhelm and exhaust everyone, they give up and you get your way, I'll have no further part in this discussion. It's obvious we can't outargue the self-crowned King of Wikipedia. Goodbye. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kraftlos won. I wasn't previously aware there were winners or losers in wikipedia, that we were a collaborative community, but I was wrong. Kraftlos, by sheer volume of posts and argumentum ad nauseam "won" this AfD discussion and I forfeit and withdraw my request for deletion on behalf of myself and the other thoughtful, well-versed participants who were kind enough to contribute to this discussion. I regret User:Kraftlos did not choose to be one of them. I regret that this type of bullying is allowed to exist on wikipedia. I regret Kraftlos was allowed to achieve this shallow and cardboard victory simply by shouting down everyone insted of presenting a valid argument. Thank you. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. Let's do this again sometime, next time with a little more civility. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is this reasoning; are we running low on disk space? --  Chzz  ►  10:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Kraftlos pointed out, it meets the guidelines. Dream Focus 16:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can site a multitude of articles that warrant no national notability (such as articles about schools, Local TV stations, extremely tiny towns, Railroad Stations, restaurants), illustrating that a subject needs notability, but it has to be no higher than notability at a local level. Though some portions of the article may not be notable enough, it seems that the subject of the article has sufficient notability to have its own article. Its not like we are running out of hard drive space or anything like that Goldman60 (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, just because a subject is only of interest to a small number of readers, doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. This isn't like a newspaper where space is limited. The only requirement is that it has coverage in reliable independent sources so there can be some objective information to put in the an article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article references coverage in reliable sources which address the subject in detail as the primary subject of the article. That meets the primary notability criterion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources, with no prejudice towards a merge to Luke Burbank, which can be discussed on the relevant talk pages. DHowell (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I vote to delete this article. The precedent was set when KISW's The Men's Room's page was removed. awbitf (awbitf) 21:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.43.242 (talk) [reply]
    • Strike out user name - there is no such user. -- Whpq (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well sourced and clearly notable article. Local notability is notability.. and we're not talking about Pixley here... it's Seattle. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this article as it stands now is well-sourced, easily clears the verifiability and notability article, and while acknowledging that notability cannot be inherited it is a show hosted by a notable person in a major American market. I hesitate to plumb the depths of the drama above but purely on the merits this article is an easy keep. - Dravecky (talk) 06:40, 4 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 05:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romanova language[edit]

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

Yet another nonnotable conlang based on Romance languages. No assertion of any scholarly discussion of this language, or any actual use of it. —Angr 10:23, 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 redirect to University House, Australian National University. MBisanz talk 07:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate House (Australian National University)[edit]

Graduate House (Australian National University) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable dorm. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Swift Keep - No more, and more importantly, no less notable than any of the ANU's residential colleges. No specific reasons for deletion advanced or particularised. Article is well-written, has adequate references for an article of its size; it is better developed than, as examples Graduate House (University of Melbourne) or University of Toronto Graduate House. Subject matter is non-contentious in itself; university residential colleges are not subject to any controverted notability discussions. There seems no reason at all why the article was nominated for deletion. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an "Other Stuff Exists" argument. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Whether or not there are other articles that are less notable is not relevant. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there are no references. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable building with no objective evidence provided for its meeting Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since when are dormitories notable? WWGB (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. See the List of Bad Article Ideas #4. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep - Residential colleges in Australia are different to dormitories in America - they usually have their own administration, traditions, etc separate from their affiliate university and are thus inherently notable (unlike a dorm, which would be analogous to a building within a hall of residence). Having said that, I'm not familiar with this one, but provided that notability can be established by secondary sources, I think it's a keep.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge to University House, Australian National University, as it appears to be a subset of that residence hall (same Master for a start).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable student accommodation (I'm an ANU graduate by the way; despite what was posted above, ANU colleges are little more than dorms, and I think that the same is true for most Australian universities) Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yeti Hunter is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelygirl16 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to University House, Australian National University, but not before content added as section - I was wrong. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)--Shirt58 (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Yeti Hunter. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are no 3rd party sources for this house at all. Merging to another house does not change that. 24.211.34.78 (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Are you seriously suggesting that the ANU website is not reliable? We're talking about verifiability, not notability in its own right as an article - sources don't need to be 3rd party for that.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The reason deletion is proposed in the nomination is on notability grounds. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Yeti is right, once merged notability isn't applicable, but I think the content should be scrutinized before merged to prevent repetition --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment "...once merged notability isn't applicable." <-- I disagree. 24.211.34.78 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment - Actually, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They don't directly limit the content of articles." If you want to discuss whether its appropriate for the other article, you can't disagree on notability grounds. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - Not in the sense of general notability requirements it isn't, but I am a firm believer in WP:TOPIC, which it certainly satisfies in this case.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:55, 4 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. MBisanz talk 07:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Passion magazine[edit]

Paris Passion magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Orphaned article about a magazine. A search for information on the magazine does not bring up much to establish notability, simply information that the magazine existed. The359 (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: article is highly encyclopedic. WP:SOFIXIT. Ottre 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment The question here is notability. How is it highly encyclopedic? The359 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly encyclopedic as a cosmopolitan lifestyle magazine, but besides that, how does launching Sarner's career not make it notable? Also, once again, I don't see why you would expect any links to the page. It's been out of print for almost two decades. Ottre 01:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Being a cosmopolitan lifestyle magazine doesn't make it notable. Claiming it started the career of someone requires at the very least some sort of notability for that person, and being out of print is hardly an excuse for having an orphaned article. The359 (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that, but wrong anyway. Sarner is a very notable former editor of the Jerusalem Post, apparently still contributes the occasional article to Canadian newspapers. That's very much up for debate, and you still haven't explained your line of thinking RE other magazines which predate the Internet. Ottre 11:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Category:Defunct magazines. Feel free to pick through, I'm sure you'll find many of them have incoming links. This does not however help to establish the notability of the article in question. The359 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A two part query then, if you would, to save me some time.
Firstly, just to confirm we're on the same page: I didn't say it was "inherently notable (and therefore encyclopedic) as it is a cosmopolitan lifestyle magazine." Its coverage makes it "clearly encyclopedic as a..."
Following on from that, don't you agree there is a pretty clear intersection of Paris/Parisian culture with most other international magazines? In my opinion, this is particularly true when speaking about older glossy magazines, but it applies here as well. General interest titles will naturally be linked to a lot more than anything catering to cosmopolitan lifestyle, but that doesn't make it any less encyclopedic RE magazines of the 1980s, right? For instance, you don't know whether they put out any influential articles on the French photography scene which was booming in the late 1980s. Ottre 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
What the magazine covers does not make it notable. The magazine itself has to be notable, not the Paris culture. I don't know if they put out any articles of note because I found nothing much about the magazine in my search, and you nor anyone else has yet to provide any actual references to this magazine which make it notable. Please see WP:Reliable sources. Word of mouth of its supposed importance isn't enough. The359 (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem... Already returning to your first point? Aren't you admitting the lack of inbound links means nothing? Proof of readership exists in the cover scans, international distribution can easily be verified. That satisfies most criteria for inclusion of print media publications, given its coverage. Further notability is conferred via the respect Sarner has demonstrably gained in the industry. Ottre 22:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Reliable references has nothing to do with having no incoming links from elsewhere on Wikipedia. You seem to have two concepts confused. You've yet to actually demonstrate anything about Sarner or this magazine, except by word of mouth. Show a reference already! The359 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're the one conflating article importance with notability. For the record although WP:WikiProject Magazines is dead, it's safe to say anybody would have ranked it as mid- importance without any official guidance. I still maintain the article is highly encyclopedic.
Your concerns about unverifiable claims should be taken to the talk page. Ottre 23:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Aye carumba...
From WP:Notability: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Your claim of "highly encyclopedic" is useless without reliable sourcing. Your opinion on the magazine does not make it notable enough for Wikipedia. This is why the article is up for deletion, because it does not appear to fulfill notability criteria due to its lack of sources and a lack of any indepedent sourcing elsewhere that seems to not only back the claims of the article, but also establish it as something notable enough for an article in the first place. The359 (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, even after thousands upon thousands of AfD discussions which support the keeping of unreferenced but verifiably encyclopic articles, WP:COMMONSENSE should now be seen as secondary to WP:N?
  • If you insist on moving to delete per "WP:V", what constitutes significant coverage of an English-language magazine that covered the cosmopolitan lifestyle in Paris during the 1980s?
Ottre 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Articles can be verified encyclopedic if they are established as such by outside references. Please point me to any AFDs for unreferenced, questionably notable articles that ended in Keep which did not include editors including outside references in order to support their opinion of Keep? This article was nominated for lack of notability due to a lack of sources establishing its notability, either in the article or in a general search outside Wikipedia. It says so right at the top. The359 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cool Hand Luke recently voted to keep SLUG Magazine as it obviously had significant readership (lasted twenty years), although he didn't turn up any WP:RS as far as I am aware. That article still fails WP:V three months later. Ottre 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
What happens at other AFDs is not relevant. The discussion should focus on this article and its merits. -- Whpq (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was one out of literally hundreds of entirely relevant examples. This "discussion" ended on March 2. Ottre 04:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would think there are many people who would like to know more about expatriate English-language publishing in Paris, which has a time-honored history. Given that Paris Passion was one of the most successful examples of this, and that it featured the work of hundreds of writers, photographers and illustrators (many of them quite accomplished) during the 1980s, it would seem to have a valid place in Wikipedia. Also, as its name indicates, the magazine was all about Paris, a city that always commands such enormous interest around the world.
I'm not sure what exactly constitutes "notable" according to your definition, but Paris Passion existed for almost 10 years and was widely known far beyond just France.
I was also confused over the debate in the 'discussion log' over the aspect of the career of Passion's founding Editor/Publisher Robert Sarner. I did not see the text about the magazine as being about "starting the career of Sarner..." as one of you stated. He's mentioned simply because he was the founder of Paris Passion and was at the helm of the magazine for most of its existence. Care1986 11:33, 2 March 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Care1986 (talk • contribs)
Comment: Because I have already voted here, and prefer to remain an uninvolved party given the COI problems which will probably be raised, I haven't updated the article. My research also suggests that there is no reason to include the Roots Canada article in the encyclopedia, but I will wait until this discussion has been closed before nominating it for deletion. Ottre 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Comment: Closing admin please note, have changed the above to reflect a vote for keeping the article. Ottre 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - Closing admin - please note I have reverted Ottre's edit. It is inappropriate to alter another editor's comments in an AFD. AFD is not a vote, and the admin will consider the arguments and opinion on the comment as it stands. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The magazine predates the widespread use of the Internet, so sources may not be available through googling. However, the demise of the magazine was worth writing about for the Witchita Eagle. Other mentions such as [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] suggest there is notabilty, and more sources could be found although not necessarily online. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 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. MBisanz talk 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Freaks Crew[edit]

Beat Freaks Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability. JaimeAnnaMoore (talk)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject has notability, but it's too limited in scope. --Sigma 7 (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to America's_Best_Dance_Crew_(Season_3)#Crews and add some details there. Like before, their entire notability is based off that event. If they won or became known otherwise as independently, then perhaps keep. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - The article is too short and only provides the people in this crew. If they win however ABDC Season 3, then I'll say keep. Someone963852 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An article being too short is NOT a reason to delete. It's called a stub article. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 23:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It appears to me that some of the members might be notable, but the group itself isn't. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wow, that's a lot of red in one article. Organization lacks notability, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Very few of the references are actually about this group.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:50, 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. MBisanz talk 07:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Pinakamagandang Hayop sa Balat ng Lupa[edit]

Ang Pinakamagandang Hayop sa Balat ng Lupa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crystalball article. This "upcoming" show has not yet OFFICIALLY confirmed by GMA or has not begun production yet. danngarcia (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion for the same reasons:

I am also like to add to this AFD the following ABS-CBN article for deletion for the same reason:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian yoga[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this comes under {{db-repost}}; created on 14th January, it appears largely similar to Egyptian Yoga, deleted at AFD on January 2nd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga).

If {{db-repost}} doesn't apply, I'm nominating it for failure to show notability. With all consideration of the risk of systemic bias (I'm not dissing sources for being French/African), the article feels to be building a story of importance based on mentions in publications too obscure to be taken as proof of notability. It also looks like a WP:COATRACK for duplicating material from Babacar Khane, by the same editor(s), and I'm not keen on the socky/COI flavour of its re-creation Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Looks like a recreation of the old article, with all the same problems. Looks like sockpuppetry being used to create promotional articles as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 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, Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Script fail. Anyway, no opinion on the article itself, but just noting for the record that this article is sufficiently different to avoid speedy deletion under WP:G4. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems border-line quackery; and of the dozen or so sources provided, none are in English. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not impossible that a good article could be written on this topic some day, but the present one is not it. If you wrote an article called 'Anglo-Saxon Yoga' you would be expected to give respectable third-party academic sources that weighed the evidence. You'd want to be convinced that what the Anglo-Saxons did could be considered yoga, and they had a distinctive approach to it. The present article reads like promotion for a particular school of yoga that would like to think of itself as Egyptian. Though db-repost may not apply, the closing admin might well take a look at the arguments in the last AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga (note upper case) since some of those arguments easily apply to this article. It is not advisable to make this title into a redirect to Babacar Khane, because the latter article looks like a candidate for deletion as well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's sources. Even though they aren't in English doesn't mean they aren't good sources. It's long enough, but a little bit choppy; if we do keep it, it should be cleaned up. Also, can we introduce it to some other articles, it's an orphan.Cssiitcic (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the nomination, I am not dissing sources for being non-English; I'm dissing them for failure to prove notability and failure to support statements in the article. For instance
Khane is considered in Europe and Africa as the main master of Egyptian yoga cited to See for example Davina, "Le maître contemporain révélateur du yoga des pharaons est Babacar KhaneMaxi Yoga, Marabout, Paris, 2003, p. 170
One sentence in a book by a TV celebrity is not proof for the general statement.
Several Africanists lean on Khane's researchs cited to See for example Muata Ashby and his numerous self-publications
Again citation doesn't support the general statement, and isn't a reliable source anyway.
the IXe philosophic seminar organized by the Catholic Faculty of Kinshasa
Is this a notable event, and to what extent did it mention the subject? And so on. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:45, 4 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 07:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Losing Focus[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notabilty guidelines for bands, thoughts? SpitfireTally-ho! 07:37, 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 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Probert[edit]

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

Doesn't assert notability; COI article. JaGatalk 07:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. There's a lot of references in this article, but all of them seem to only mention the subject in passing. Probert seems to be skirting the edge of notability, but to my mind hasn't really made it yet. JulesH (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability is not established. Also appears to have been written by the subject. Adam Zel (talk) 14:38, 4 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. The arguments for deletion within this article centred on a misapplication of WP:ATHLETE, since hurling is not an Olympic sport, so we have to look at the highest available amateur level. In this case, the consensus appears to be that these players meet that "highest" standard. One comment I would make is that many of these are 1-3 line stubs that say basically the same thing, and redirects to some list of players might be more efficient until their careers provide them with more specific coverage. That is, however, and editorial issue since there is no consensus here for me to take such an action. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Moran[edit]

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

A young fellow who plays hurling with his local club. Notability that I can perceive: zero. (I got to his page while looking for Joe Moran, unrelated author of the fine book Queuing for Beginners; since there was no article about him, I later went on to create one.)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're about his teammates and thus are similarly about young sportsmen of (as yet) no discernable notability:

Ray Ryan (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barry Johnson (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tadhg Óg Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aidan Ryan (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Darren Crowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adrian Mannix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ger O'Driscoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cian McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chris Murphy (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alan Kennedy (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Craig Leahy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions and the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. / Morenoodles (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That just means that amateur hurlers aren't per se notable unless they meet other WP:N criteria. The top Wiffleball players don't get Wikipedia entries, either. THF (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What WP:ATHLETE says about amateur athletes is that the following are notable; People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships. So if you have played at the highest amateur level of your sport you can qualify. It doesn't matter if your sport doesn't have Olympic Games or World Championships (or didn't when you played). This is why a hurler like Christy Ring, a Gaelic footballer like Peter Canavan or a 1960s/1970s rugby union player like Colin Meads who have references to show their notablility most definitely qualify for inclusion. Tameamseo (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Hurling to Wiffleball demonstrates your total lack of understand of the topic Gnevin (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: many more people play Wiffleball and Ultimate frisbee than hurling. Which proves my point. THF (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it proves that more people living in America than Ireland. I'm sure more people play Wiffleball than Rugby union or drive F1 cars should we delete all the Rugby players and racing drivers too ? When was the last time 80,000 people turned up to see a Wiffleball or Ultimate game? Gnevin (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides WP:ILIKEIT, where is the objective dividing line that distinguishes Wiffleball from hurling under WP:ATHLETE? That's all I'm saying. We include top professional athletes and amateur athletes who compete in worldwide championships. A Christy Ring does not meet WP:ATHLETE, but gets an article because he meets WP:BIO. If someone wants to create a Cork County hurling team article, that perhaps meets WP:N. THF (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dividing line is 80,000 people in Croke Park, units of the GAA across the world, RTÉ and TV3 Ireland broadcasting live game. Hours of radio air time, Thousand of websites. Christy Ring doesn't meet athlete catch a grip would you ? Sports players don't have to be paid to be notable. If you had your way you'd probaly delete everyone in Category:Hurlers because they don't met your concept of a paid sports man. Gnevin (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, please, I've already said that Christy Ring is notable, and I'm open-minded about this. Educate me: is there a reliable and comprehensive hurling website akin to http://www.baseball-reference.com that articles about minor players can cite? If so, that in conjunction with your argument might persuade me to change my !vote. THF (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I can interrupt...a hurling statistics website with player profiles does exist, but unfortunately it only covers the Championship phase of the season, which runs from May to September. So due to the fact that these hurlers are replacing the 2008 panel who are on strike and none of them has played before this year, profiles of Cork hurlers you'll find there are people like Seán Óg Ó hAilpín who played last year but are now on strike - and Adrian Mannix et al won't be included till May. However, I think there are now enough sources on for example Ray Ryan (hurler) to establish notability. Tameamseo (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These don't appear to be notable athletes. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. --Revolución hablar ver 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete alll. No evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I might add that none of the pages seems to have been edited since I listed it above, and that as far as I remember the sole claim that was referenced in any of them when I drew up this AfD was that some relative(s) of one of the players had also been a hurler. Morenoodles (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep A quick Google search has just enabled me to add numerous references to Joe Moran. I'll add to the others when I have time. Like Colin Meads, Peter Canavan or Christy Ring, there are references demonstrating their notability, and they have played at the highest level of their sport (with the Cork inter-county team) as per WP:ATHLETE. Tameamseo (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Playing at the top level and currently in the middle of a bitter strike. Gnevin (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All of these references are pure WP:LARD that barely mention Moran, and result in article sentences such as "He did not start for Cork in their loss to Dublin but was drafted in at right half-back against Tipperary." It is impossible to believe that the ARS doesn't have anything better to do. Might I suggest filling in red-links at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law/United_States_federal_judges? THF (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ARS ? Gnevin (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article rescue squadron. THF (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly ARS is it now. Why do users expect a 10,000 word article. 30 interviews ,a sponsorship deal and a book as reference on players who have just started playing at the highest level ? Gnevin (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly? Somebody used the {{rescue}} tag. We don't require "30 interviews," but we do require "significant independent coverage" in a biography, which doesn't exist here. THF (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many reference do you want for player who's played 3 games ? Gnevin (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that response essentially acknowledging that a player who has played three amateur games of a sport at the local level isn't notable? THF (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it's asking how many reference you would like for a player who is playing the second most popular sport in Ireland in the most important league of that sport, a sport which will draw 80,000 people to All-Ireland final but a player who only play 3 games at the highest level. Don't let the word amateur fool you. Hurling is amateur in name only Gnevin (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per WP:ATHLETE cos played at the top level for his sport, but I see the point about the criteria for notability being stretched. I decided to Keep because inter-county GAA players, although amateur, are notable at a national level (and sometimes at an international level) and citations exist at this level. --HighKing (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Non-notable, no reliable sources that are individualized to any of these players, they do not meet WP:ATHLETE exception. If there are some individual profiles of some of the stars, then they might make the cut. See athletes like Colt McCoy or Brian Orakpo, who, just for being a college football player, which has an enormous following, are not considered notable under WP:ATHLETE, but their individual coverage met general WP:N notability requirements.--2008Olympianchitchat 17:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the basis for saying that there must be 'individual profiles' of a player and "sources that are individualized to" him before be can be considered notable. "Significant coverage" is all that is required by WP:N. It should be more than trivial but it is NOT the case that it has to be exclusive and individualized solely to the person. Tameamseo (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, I agree, but it needs to be significant coverage of the subject of the article, not significant coverage of the sport or event to meet WP:N.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, so you agree there doesn't have to be a profile of each player? Would you agree that the sources now added on for example Ray Ryan (hurler) are sufficient to demonstrate notability? Tameamseo

(talk) 08:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • I agree that there should be sufficient sources about the player himself.--2008Olympianchitchat 22:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, but do you mind answering specifically the two actual questions I posed? I'll copy them here; "OK, so you agree there doesn't have to be a profile of each player? Would you agree that the sources now added on for example Ray Ryan (hurler) are sufficient to demonstrate notability? " Thanks. Tameamseo (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Adrian Mannix Indpendent reliable sources now added for this article. Tameamseo (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ray Ryan Multiple independent reilable sources added to Ray Ryan (hurler), including full article about him in the Sunday Tribune national newspaper. Notability should be obvious. Tameamseo (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More now added, including another national one devoted to his comments, from the Irish Independent this time. Tameamseo (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the arguments being made for "delete", but it appears the article has been improved somewhat; that the sport, while odd to me as a Yank, seems to be quite popular; and since it's in encyclopediac form (ie, not being used as a vanity site), I would suggest it's no different than other articles on sports or sports statistics. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is not an AFD debate for the sport itself, but rather a player. --Sc straker (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are notable athletes playing at the very top level of their sport. The sport itself gets widespread coverage in Ireland along with coverage in UK, USA and Australia. The present definition of notability for amateur athletes states "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". All of these players have competed at "Inter-county" level which is the highest level you can compete at in Hurling. Surely this means all of these players are notable therefore under amateur notability ?ManfromDelmonte (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the entire guideline on amateur sports, it says that the "highest level" means "the Olympics or World Championships." All other amateur athletes need to meet general notability guidelines.--2008Olympianchitchat 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No is says People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships. For usally read normally but not always Gnevin (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2008 Olympian, you are misquoting the critereon. Its says "usually considering to mean Olympic Games or World Championships" as GNevin has pointed out. Your reasoning is based on a misreading of the notability cirtereon. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This whole AFD seems to have been based on the misreading of a wikipedia notability criteron. The critereon states that amateur players who have played at the highest level of their sport are notable. These players have all played at inter-county level (the very highest level in hurling world-wide) and therefore fullfil this criteron to the letter of the law. A number of delete comments are on the basis that they have not played at the Olympics which isn't what the notability critereon states is a "be all and end all". ManfromDelmonte (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it's a great pity that the nominator appears to have misunderstood how WP:ATHLETE relates to Gaelic games. The article Gaelic Athletic Association says in its first line that it is an amateur sports association, and a little more reading would have revealed that inter-county competitions are the highest level of competition in GAA sports. A little further reading would have led the nominator to understand that these amateur sports have a massive following in Ireland, something which will be unfamiliar to those from countries such as the USA or the UK where the most popular sports are played by highly-paid professional teams. I think that the time is long overdue for a revision of WP:ATHLETE so that it displays less systemic bias towards the sporting structures of some larger countries. However, that doesn't mean that I will !vote to keep all these articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split vote:
    • Keep Joe Moran, Ray Ryan (hurler), Tadhg Óg Murphy, Adrian Mannix: all these articles have references to demonstrate that they meet the criteria in WP:ATHLETE
    • Delete Barry Johnson (hurler), Aidan Ryan (hurler), Darren Crowley, Ger O'Driscoll, Cian McCarthy, Chris Murphy (hurler), Alan Kennedy (hurler) and Craig Leahy. These articles are wholly unreferenced, so their claims to notability are not supported by any reference, and wikipedia has no business publishing wholly unreferenced biographies of living people (see WP:BLP). No prejudice to recreating these articles at a future date if they are referenced to establish notability. As Jimmy Wales wrote, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."" It's time to stop pussyfooting around this one and simply delete BLP articles which mock wikipedia's core policies by failing to even provide a reference for the subject's existence, let alone evidence to support the assertion of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: I have struck out my "delete" !votes for the articles which are now referenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      ... and now that the remaining two are referenced, I have struck them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment So all unreferenced articles on wikipedia should be AfDed ? ManfromDelmonte (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe that BHG is talking about unreferenced articles about living people. Morenoodles (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Morenoodles is correct. We have a policy of removing unref material from BLP articles, and in cases where the article is wholly unreferenced the only way to remove it is to delete the article. I think that summary deletion should be reserved for extreme cases (poss hoax etc), but none of this should be any surprise to even a new editor. The edit box when starting a new article is clearly preceded by the following warning:

When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references will likely be deleted quickly.

That warning is there on your first new article and on your thousandth and on your hundred-thousandth. When there's such a clear warning, why do some editors appear surprised when this actually happens? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On notability: You cite WP:ATHLETE. This is actually one section within Wikipedia:Notability (people). Near the top of the latter, we read: Basic criteria / A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. / If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. [...] For Ryan, the secondary material has some volume and depth, and that's why (in the comment close below) I retract my nomination for the deletion of the article on him. However, as far as I have seen, Joe Moran, Tadhg Óg Murphy, and Adrian Mannix are mentioned only fleetingly. For example, several of the sources given to show that this or that player played in this or that match are actually articles that say who's expected to play, and that even in this context merely mention the name of the player (rather than, say, explaining why he's likely to play). Ryan aside, I'd call the sum of all this "trivial coverage". (And as you say, eight other players could be entirely fictional for all we know.) Morenoodles (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • On notability reply Your whole argument stand or falls on if playing at the top of you chosen sport is worthy of note. Is it? Not mention these player are playing during a strike.Gnevin (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Morenoodles, please take a moment or two more to read Wikipedia:Notability (people) a little more carefully. You quite accurately cite the basic criteria, but WP:ATHLETE is part of the WP:BIO#Additional_criteria, which begins "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards.". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emendation. It was me who made this nomination. I'm impressed by the article on Ray Ryan (hurler) as this now stands, and would like to retract my suggestion that it should be deleted. Morenoodles (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. I will be the first to admit that I know very little about the sport. Assuming that Gnevin is correct and Hurling can draw 80,000 people to a match, hurling is not just a recreational sport. The sport is just regionalized. So is sumo wrestling, American college football, darts and even cricket. Also, WP:ATHLETE does not say amateur athletes have to participate in the Olympics. 09er (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every player now has at least 2 references from the national media. Gnevin (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep for all These are notable athletes playing at the highest highest level of their sport (Ireland's second most popular). They are most certainly notable at a national level. I think WP:ATHLETE should be revised so that similar, unnecessary nomiations don't arise in the future. Derry Boi (talk) 10:08, 5 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 05:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly tent[edit]

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

This article Butterfly tent is suspected to be a hoax.

Originally there were some references in the article, none of which appeared to have any mention of the topic - a request for valid references was posted in late Jan 2009, but none have so far been supplied. The original references were either to commercial sites selling tents or to personal blogs.

The original author appears to be a single-purpose account, whose only edits have either been to this article or to insert references to it in other articles.

The original author objected to <uncontested deletion> but did not provide any reasons for doing so, and has also stated that the subject is so obscure that a basic Google search will not turn up any references.

Murray Langton (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. "First recorded instance of automatic air conditioning." Yeah, right. If they were "conceived during the mid 16th Century", how did they manage to influence the Latin language, as claimed? In any case, if the subject is so obscure that no references can be found, it certainly fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:V. (And "the word for tent in Latin is Pavillion, while the word for butterfly in Latin is Patillion" is complete bollocks.) Deor (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • JohnCD makes a good point. (Purported) 16th century inventions are nothing to do with the claimed etymology. The claimed etymology is wrong, anyway. The Latin for "butterfly" is in actual fact "papilio". Whilst we do get words like "pavilion" from that root, that's because they resembled butterflies in their appearance. "pavilion" can be traced back to the 4th century BCE (the historian Lampridius), long before the 16th century.(Mohammad Diab (1999). "pavilion". Lexicon of Orthopaedic Etymology. Taylor & Francis. p. 240. ISBN 9789057025976.) A "papilio" wasn't a 16th century Arab merchants' tent. It was a Roman soldiers' tent, used when on campaign, made of leather, housing 8 soldiers (a "contubernium"), and so-called because it rolled up into a long sausage-shape, and thus, when unrolled and erected, resembled the process of a chrysalis becoming a butterfly.(Graham Webster (1998). The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D. University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 169–170. ISBN 9780806130002.)

    I note that Wikipedia has nothing on the tents of Roman soldiers. But this isn't a start to remedying that, because none of it is actually right. Even the title is wrong. Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as both non-notable and unverifiable, even in the event that it is true. Anaxial (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in that I can't find any legitimate history on the butterfly tent, just websites selling them. No references either. Matt (talk) 03:26, 4 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan[edit]

Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research. Surely fantasy anti-Japan propaganda designed to crapflood the internet via scrubbers Oncebyten (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC) — Oncebyten (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep I don't see how this is propaganda, perhaps biased but not propganda. The article has been around for four years and has a good number of reliable references. Granted its a start class and needs work, but I don't see good reason to delete it. Also it doesn't appear that the merge proposals have been given very much discussion; that should have been tried long before it came to AfD. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The solution for propaganda would be editing, not deletion. Fg2 (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article lists a large number of references, though they need to be cited in-line. The nominator not only has made no attempt to improve this article, nominating it for deletion are their only edits. Edward321 (talk)
  • Speedy delete There is no such thing as "Militarism-Socialism". There is not one scholarly paper on "Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan". There are no internet resources on "Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan" except for copies of this page. None of the references mention "Militarism-Socialism". There is no topic on right-socialim or militarism-socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica. 118.0.145.32 (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC) — 118.0.145.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Perhaps the title is incorrect but the content is correct? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Kraftlos asks -- is this simply a misnamed article or is the content twisting the sources? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Please see this sockpuppet investigation. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 00:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And please also note that it was Edward321 that put in the investigation to rig this vote their way. Look at the content and concept folks. Thanks. --118.0.145.32 (talk) 00:11, 4 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 merge to Christmas lights . MBisanz talk 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas light sculpture[edit]

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

Original research, unreferenced, author was recently warned about the same issues when this very material was removed from Light sculpture. No indication that these displays are considered sculpture. If the author wants to build up Christmas decorations from a redirect, that would be great. Lithoderm 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Christmas light display and redirect. "Sculpture" is a minimally used term in this context, equating to a neologism, or at most a minor marketing term with a mere 90 google hits.[47] However, as it's unreferenced at the moment, I have no objection to it being deleted, certainly with the article name and orientation as it stands. Ty 07:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Christmas lights per Pastor Theo. Ty 12:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. "Not sculpture" is elitist. They are obviously and inherently wireform sculpture, and as proven by the examples at the bottom, can be extremely artistic and beautiful. If you don't want it in an arts category, fine, that's exactly why I didn't put it in one. But there is no reason to come into the Christmas categories and try to eliminate it. Most of this is common knowledge, at least in the U.S., where they are so common in nearly every town and store. The rest is examples, which anyone is welcome to change to other, more diverse examples (although the Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge examples are very well-known regionally, including surrounding states from which they attract significant winter tourism due in large part to the lights). Also, the Christmas lights article is long enough, and this is a distinct concept.  –radiojon (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Christmas lights..Modernist (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Christmas lights seems sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Christmas lights looks the best solution, I really don't see it as a "sculpture" and stand alone article. Sorry, but it is a light display for Christmas - Christmas lights. Artypants, Babble 16:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Christmas lights. freshacconci talktalk 20:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is not a sculpture, which implies it has pretensions of being art. It is more correctly called a Christmas "display," because they never aspire to be art. Are they submitted to art shows, art galleries, art museums? If not merged to Christmas lights I would suggest a new title, Christmas display, because "sculpture" is misleading and probably a misnomer. Also, note the sort of objects that are found at Light sculpture. They all obviously aspire to be thought of as art, primarily. Bus stop (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with you in principle, however my !vote to redirect is simply for the term "Christmas light sculpture" to be a redirect on the very unlikely chance that someone may use that term looking for an article on Christmas decorations. All a bit silly in the end. My mother was quite talented when setting up the Christmas lights, decorating the tree, and so on. She would have found it amusing to have been called an artist. freshacconci talktalk 20:58, 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. MBisanz talk 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilocate[edit]

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

Basically a promotional flyer compiled primarily by two accounts with obvious professional connections to the band. Aside from some name dropping and brief mentions in minor metal 'zines, this is an unsigned band attempting to use wikipedia to promote their self-published demos. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, they may still not be notable, but the article has shed, mysteriously, a lot of issues that bothered the nominator. ;) Drmies (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your trimming of the fat, but all that's left is gristle. The albums are self-published, there are no sources to corroborate any of the info, and the biggest claim to fame is an appearance on a local radio show. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't describe Terrorizer, Decibel or Blabbermouth as "minor metal zines". The article obviously needs to be cleaned up but unsigned or not, the subject clearly passes the first criteria of WP:MUSIC. --Bardin (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would. These are specialist publications catering to a small subset of the music industry. Of them, Terrorizer is the only 'zine with a reputable history, whereas Decibel is a recent publication published by a small independent design firm (a sort of specialized vanity press for promoting homespun journalism), and Blabbermouth, as the title suggests, is an online forum. I do not doubt that Bilocate exists, nor that a few diehard metalheads might have heard of it, but damned if it isn't an obscure go-nowhere band that has garnered nothing but trivial coverage in fringe circles. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ouch. Perhaps you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, or a site by its title. Blabbermouth is not an online forum. It is a news site on heavy metal music. It has been regularly deemed to be both a reliable and reputable source for featured articles on wikipedia. It has been cited as a source in books and other news media publication. Its own news article can be found through a google news search. Decibel magazine has been around for five years now and I fail to see how that is even relevant to this discussion. It is a reputable print magazine, has been the subject of other publications, can easily be found on google news. Vanity press? It is a magazine devoted to extreme metal, not its own self. Homespun journalism? Its editor-in-chief is the author of a book that has been published by Feral House (no relation to Decibel magazine), features an introduction by John Peel, and has been cited by other books in the academia. Seriously, where do you get off slandering other people's businesses? So what if these are specialist publications? You make it sound as if that is somehow a bad thing, as if the only magazines that are reliable or reputable are those that cater to the mainstream market. You made a mistake stating that this band has only received brief mentions in minor metal zines. Terrorizer is practically the definition of a major metal zine. So try to be humble, accept that you made an error and move on. As for your opinion on this band, it has no relevance whatsoever here. Only wikipedia policy does and there's nothing on WP:MUSIC that states an article should be deleted if an editor thinks that the subject is an "obscure go-nowhere band" in "fringe circles". What it does state is that a band is notable enough if it has received multiple, non-trivial coverage in independent and reliable sources. This band clearly meets that criteria with coverage in at least three major sources and numerous other minor ones. Not trivial coverage like a passing or brief mention but substantial enough in the form of interviews, reviews and news reports. --Bardin (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Aside from disagreeing with my opinion of the sources, do you have anything to say about the band? Please link to, or at least describe, these non-trivial mentions. (BTW, I stopped paying attention to your rant somewhere around the Peel namedropping) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think all contributors here should settle down a bit. Bardin, I think you make a good point, and it'd be better if you would just say it and leave some of your other commentary out; Anetode, Decibel really has more going for it than you suggest, and it'd be good if you acknowledged that (and namedropping is the name of the game called WP:RS). We're all on the same team. Now, having said that, I'm perfectly willing to accept Decibel, but if they discuss the band on their blog only, then that really isn't much of a reference; moreover, it's not so good that we have to get to what Decibel said in a second- or third-hand way. Blabbermouth isn't so authoritative to me though it would help in a secondary way; Terrorizer might help clinch it. Where's User:Blackmetalbaz when you need him? Really, I think many of us would be much happier if these references were significant, in-depth and all, even if the notability of some of them is shaky to some editors. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Drmies: John Peel has absolutely jack shit to do with the band. Throwing out random industry names in the above fashion is nothing but a game of six degrees of separation. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Come on, you know better than to think I would think that. Peel has something to do with the authority of the editor of Decibel, which has something to do with the notability of the band. This band, like most subjects at AfD, is on the fringe of notability, so you look wherever you can ('you' being Bardin, of course). And he's got something of a point, since you deny the RS-ness of Decibel--and again, I agree with him on the status of Decibel though I still don't believe the reference amounts to significant in-depth coverage (I'm not impressed by an appearance in a demo column). I just want both of you to play nice. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Anetode, are you trying to start a flame war or something? I do not think you are an idiot so you should know perfectly well why I mentioned John Peel. All I was trying to do was correct your erroneous descriptions of Blabbermouth and Decibel. Please take a step back and look hard at your behavior here, from slandering other people's reputable businesses as homespun journalism and vanity press to describing my explanation as a rant and insinuating that I'm trying to play a game of six degrees of separation. Stop looking at everything here with hostile eyes, okay? Chill out. --Bardin (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey Bardin, I looked through the contents of all of 2008's Decibels on their website, and found no mention of them. Do you know when they were reviewed/featured? Drmies (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)\\[reply]
          • From the Invisible Oranges link it sounds like they appear in the demo column. Artw (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • "I've been doing Decibel's demo column ("Throw Me a Frickin' Bone!") for a little while now. The only prerequisite for inclusion (other than being "metal enough") is being unsigned." - That one blog with the invisible oranges *ahem* ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Right--thanks to both. I wish we had a direct link to Decibel discussing Bilocate. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Drmies, you can pretty much find all the press the band has received on their own website. They have made it that much more convenient for us. Terrorizer has done a review, an interview and a feature on Middle Eastern bands that included coverage of Bilocate. They have also been interviewed and reviewed in another major metal zine in the form of Metal Hammer. The Blabbermouth review can be found here while news coverage from Blabbermouth includes this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. The Decibel review can be found here in pdf format. Coverage in minor zines includes this, this, this, this, this, etc. Chronicles of Chaos has done a review too. --Bardin (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That's great, but I'm trying to stay away from bands' own websites. If I get around to it, I may add a few of those notes (Metal Hammer and Terrorizer) to the article--in a proper template. If such a reference is only made via a hyperlink to a document on the band's website, without the other bibliographic information, it looks, well, not so good. I still think that Blabbermouth does not establish notability, though it might help if such notability is already established. I wish Terrorizer would be more available online! Drmies (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Umm, all those material are third party, independent sources. There's no wikipedia policy against using them. You do not need to link to any website, let alone the band's site. All you need to do is cite the magazine title, the issue number, page, author, etc. --Bardin (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Umm? I know how to do this, thanks--but I'm not going to state things as facts that I don't know are facts, or include references I haven't seen. Check the history of Bilocate: I've actually worked on this; this sort of work takes some time and effort. You could have brought those references into the article also. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The last time I worked on an article while it was being nominated for deletion, I ended up wasting hours because it eventually got deleted anyway. As for your other comments, I'm confused. References you haven't seen? That's what the links I provided are for. So that they can be seen. I wouldn't think it makes a difference whether you hold the actual magazine in your hand or if you view a scan of the relevant page from a website. --Bardin (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) Metal Hammer and Terrorizer have been added to the article; the links are to the PDFs on the band's website. Anetode, does that help? Drmies (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm trying to help these guys out a little, and found one article that mentions how one of their concerts was shut down for unspecified security reasons ([48]) but I can't get to the article. It's part of a series by a Dubai newspaper, "Young in the Muslim World," here. But for some reason I can't get the actual text for the story "Lost in adolescent limbo," and what I did find of the article is incomplete--the story is much longer than that. Any WWW-wizards around who know how to dig this article up? It's an interesting read, no matter whether Bilocate stays or not. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have received a PDF from the editor of that newspaper; he says there's a technical glitch that disallowed the article from showing up online. I hope they get to fix that. In the meantime, I have added the note (with reference) to the article, and I have the PDF to prove it. ;) Drmies (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, Keep. The article now has some references that in my opinion offer enough independent coverage in reliable sources for passing WP:N. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources seem sufficient. Artw (talk) 01:07, 5 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 The Only Sheet . MBisanz talk 06:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.tos[edit]

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

This article serves as an advertisement for a website - the .tos extension isn't necessary to open the file - these are plain Excel workbooks. JaGatalk 06:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect perhaps? But I don't know where to. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A I have refined and cleaned the definition of the suffix. If this better? --RiTz21
No, I still don't believe it's enough. Agree with the opinions given below. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whatever this is, it's unsourced, and virtually un-Googleable because "TOS" is also an abbreviation for "Terms of Service". If this article is going to have any possibility of being kept, its supporters will have to find the sources themselves. As a second choice, merge into The Only Sheet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notability of the software which uses this file format (The Only Sheet) is dubious; the format itself is definitely not notable. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Zetawoof. As a stretch, I might even go so far as to say "merge it into The Only Sheet". Matt (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Only Sheet as likely search term. -Atmoz (talk) 20:23, 4 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 06:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binge and Grab[edit]

Binge and Grab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article for an individual song that has no indication of notability. didn't chart or win an award. unsourced. This was bundled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somewhere Over the Slaughterhouse (song) but has been moved to it's own afd. Discussion has occurred there. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:54, 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 redirect to Enter the Chicken. MBisanz talk 07:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We Are One (Buckethead song)[edit]

We Are One (Buckethead song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article for an individual song that has no indication of notability. didn't chart or win an award. no coverage in independant sources. This was bundled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somewhere Over the Slaughterhouse (song) but has been moved to it's own afd. Discussion has occurred there. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The song features high profile guest musician Serj Tankian of System Of A Down and was released as a video single to promote Enter the Chicken in 2005. The video clip, made by Syd Garon and Rodney Ascher got airplay on relevant media (see screenshot). The song was also used as part of the Masters of Horror soundtrack and used in the episode Dance of the Dead of the award winning series. The article is clearly in bad shape and the Buckethead Taskforce is willing to change this in short time. Therefore the article has been tagged as "needing immediate atention" even prior to this AfD.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 07:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources, my nomination still stands. None of the new references go beyond trivial coverage of the song.Duffbeerforme (talk) 01:59, 5 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 merge to Chota (Cherokee town). MBisanz talk 05:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Chota[edit]

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

I proposed deletion of this article, which was originally filled with the same pseudohistorical nonsense as the revision I just undid ten minutes ago, the same kind that led to the deletion of the "House of Moytoy" and its related articles. After it's revision to what I have just restored, I withdrew my request but now see that as long as there is an article by the name "Prince of Chota" on Wikipedia, someone will always attempt to return that nonsense to it. I am therefore re-proposing its deletion. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep edit disputes are not a reason for deletion. Artw (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV, a hoax, and a coatrack that serves no purpose except to let people reintroduce "House of Moytoy" pseudohistory. Nothing verifiable can be discussed in this article, except that this phrase appears in certain British-American colonial documents. It's an invention of the British that corresponds to who-knows-what title or titles in the actual Cherokee polity; the sources I've found do not say. WillOakland (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. True, editorial disputes are not a reason to delete an article, but this article should not exist at all. It contains two sentences that could be fitted--or not--into the "Cherokee" article. The only reason it was written in the first place was to support the royal "House of Moytoy" fiction and its attendant idiocies. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking !vote. As nominator, the nomination is already considered an endorsement of deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To whomever it may concern: I've restored the "edit" I'd previously undone so that editors can see why this article should be deleted. Among other things, there are no sources for it as it was editted before I fixed it. As it was before, it was an accurate but two sentence stub that could've been fit into the larger "Cherokee" article in one sentence. Given that, there is no reason for it to continue to exist as its presence on Wikipedia is an invitation to those who would like to pose pretentious fantasy as fact. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not a good idea. I've reverted it - please don't damage articles to make a WP:POINT or bolster chances of deletion. Artw (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's no need. People can dig into the history if necessary. WillOakland (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, except that Artw has already expressed his wish that the article stay. So, I'll eliminate the need to check the history:

[49]

Almost all that information is spurious, yet someone who's a proponent of the idea of a "House of Moytoy", "Cherokee royalty", and even a nonexistent connection to the Anglo-Irish baronial house of Carpenter, comes along and sticks that trash in every couple of weeks. Frankly, I'm tired of restoring it. It's not an editorial dispute, it's one of fact vs. fiction. And the article shouldn't even exist to be vandalized. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the very unusual step of editing your comment. Copying the text here violates the copyright license and is essentially self-defeating, since it ensure that it will remain somewhere on Wikipedia indefinitely. A link to the revision is enough. WillOakland (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd've done that if I'd thought of it. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge verifiable material to Cherokee. The concept exists however misused it it is. The Cherokee article would be the appropriate place for the information. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Yes, the concept exists, but it is fiction, and I am not aware of how promoting fiction as fact will help Wikipedia. As long as there is a reference to "Prince of Chota", it's going to serve as an invitation for people in the fantasy world. It was merely the erroneous way the British and early Americans (as late as the early 19th century, the USG referred to Black Fox as the "King" of the Cherokee), and the appelation does deserves no mention as it was never of any importance until some person found a mention of it and decided it meant that the Cherokee had a royal family, which they didn't. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Striking !vote. Please, only one per customer. Now as to it being fiction, I am not arguing that the Cherokee did have royalty and titles as we know it. However, this misinterpretation is real, and is being used in a variety of texts (for example this). There is sufficient material to justify identifying this misinterpretation of the Cherokee nation within the Cherokee article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that source explains rather clearly why no useful article article can be written. WillOakland (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Chota (Cherokee town). (And semi-protect the redirect if necessary.) We're not required to extensively document outdated misinformation and puffery beyond a sentence saying "Many sources say X but this has been shown to be invented." 138.123.66.54 (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's misinformation, why have it on Wikipedia at all? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - Historically incorrect interpretations that live on should be explained. I am not advocating propogating misinformation but rther explaining the misconception. After all, despite being misinformation, we still have material about a flat earth, around which everything else revolves. -- Whpq (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Put it in the article on "British colonization of the Americas", because it really has nothing to do with the Cherokee. Otherwise, do away with it. There's no merit or purpose to it, and the "House of Moytoy" article was deleted for those reasons. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:39, 5 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 The_Cuckoo_Clocks_of_Hell. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spokes for the Wheel of Torment[edit]

Spokes for the Wheel of Torment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article for an individual song that has no real reason given for notability. didn't chart or win an award. reference gives no indication of notability is trivial coverage. This was bundled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to Bucketheadland but has been moved to it's own afd. Discussion has occurred there. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say ignore that discussion for clarity. Repeating, redirect to the album article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The song is mainly notable for its video based on famous triptychs by Hieronymus Bosch. The video clip has been included to several compilation DVDs such as Anxious Animation and Secret Recipe and was shown at some festivals around the world (see 2005 bitfilm festival and 52nd Sydney Film Festival for example). The article is clearly in bad shape and the Buckethead Taskforce is willing to change this in short time. Therefore the article has been tagged as "needing immediate atention" even prior to this AfD.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 07:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are saying that the song is notable because of the fame of its music video which comes from, for examples, film festivals about famous music videos? Ignoring the overly technical argument that the music video deserves an article not the song, WP:MUSIC cites "ranked on national or significant music charts, won significant awards or honors or been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups" for probably notability and unless the festivals are somehow notable, I'm not sure I think that's enough. I'm not being snarky or anything. I'm just trying to see it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same question about the notability of the compilation DVDs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep AV Club is not trivial coverage, but I wouldn't mind a Merge into The Cuckoo Clocks of Hell. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage of the song in the AV Club references is trivial, consisting of only one sentence. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither of the two new sources are non trivial. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:46, 5 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan (song)[edit]

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

Article for an individual song that has no real reason given for notability. didn't chart or win an award. references give no indication of notability and are not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Guitar world article only has relatively trivial coverage and the other ref is not a reliable source. This was bundled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to Bucketheadland but has been moved to it's own afd. Discussion has occurred there. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per notability due to its involvement with Guitar Hero II and possibly a mention on South Park. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What can I say that 253,000 Google hits can't? Oh yeah, try another search string, then it's even 959,000...--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 07:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the song is involved with the guitar hero II being the most dificult track of the game, thats something worth to keep. also the point where you have no place to merge this page scince the song doesnt have an album of his own--Pachon (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the song is one of the hardest tracks on Guitar Hero! -- Smb2098 13:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, it's use in Guitar Hero II. However, I would remove most of or the whole section about Guitar Hero II as that appears to be too trivial. Besides that, it's got decent coverage in reliable sources.--DisturbedNerd999 03:51, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 05:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Jamaica relations[edit]

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

This is one of the many, many articles on non-notable bilateral relationships created by Plumoyr (talk · contribs) and their recently banned sock puppet Groubani (talk · contribs). No third-party citations to establish notability were provided, and it seems highly unlikely that the relationship between these two countries meets WP:N. As an indicator of the lack of notability of this relationship, the Greek foreign ministry's website states that trade between the two countries is under US$500,000 a year: [50] and neither country has an embassy in the other. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename Greco-Jamaican relations. Bilateral relations are notable and encyclopedic, just like Foo at the Olympics when Foo had a handful of athletes none medal-winning. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could you please find some references which establish notability here? These kind of articles are frequently deleted when they're nominated and your position seems to be basically WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. No third-party sources, fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 20:27, 4 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 merge to List of humorous units of measurement. MBisanz talk 05:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beard-second[edit]

The article is a joke and does not refer to an actual term Ucanlookitup (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be a rarely used joke measurement. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Older versions of this page suggest this was invented as part of a "teaching exercise," which suggests to me that this was something made up for a textbook problem somewhere if it exists at all. If so, it's unlikely to be notable. The only things making me hesitate here are a) the article's existed since 2005 and b) the cited Google calculator search does in fact work, but none of that proves anything and it's not like there aren't other obscure measurements or easter eggs on Google. Actual searches for "beard-second" failed to turn up anything that didn't appear to be descendant of the Wikipedia article. BryanG (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article should clearly have been deleted as original fluff when it was first written, however it now, for whatever reason, represents a genuine unit of measurement used for teaching Fermi style mathematics. (Mr. Celery (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • What exactly changed in between then and now? WillOakland (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a joke repository. WillOakland (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A google search for "x meters in beard-seconds" will give a result from google calculator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.237.106 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also says that the "answer to life the universe and everything" is 42. Google calculator is not without it's sense of humor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucanlookitup (talk • contribs) 2009-02-28 17:03:09
    • It also answers the question "how many smoots in a mile", A smoot was an inside joke at MIT. "recognition" by Google calculator does not make it a legitimate term Ucanlookitup (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While uncommon, this actually is used by some physicists I know; albeit this a really a joke unit, so it should be described as such. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 22:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Something this dubious needs coverage in multiple reliable sources. At best, Google is a tertiary source. And the citation of one out-of-print handbook I can't seem to find anywhere (not in the local library nor the university library here) is not very reliable, at least to me. Copysan (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just looked for sources, too. As BryanG says, everyone else appears to have received their information from Wikipedia, with many people even directly pointing to this article. So I went back to the original source cited in the first revision of the article. (The source currently cited was added two and a half years later, by another editor.) It doesn't exist any more, and is not available in the Internet Archive. However, I found an excerpt from it, quoted elsewhere. It's a question, asking whether such a unit exists. (Ironically, I discovered that here, in 2006, another person answered a copy of that question. But by that time Wikipedia mirrors had of course been repeating this very article all across the WWW for a couple of months.)

    The earliest discussion of this that I can find is Kemp Benett Kolb writing in the Journal of Irreproducible Results — a joke article, with fake citations (the "J. Of Things That Ought to Be Dn"), in a non-serious publication. There's nothing suitable as source material for an encylopaedia article there. Fiction is not fact.

    I can find no reliable source documenting this subject that doesn't implicitly rely upon the correctness of this very article, and there's nothing to support this article's correctness. It may well be a common joke, Member, but no-one has ever reliably and seriously documented it. That's a necessary step. Knowledge must be researched, published, fact checked, and peer reviewed, outside of Wikipedia, first. That includes facts about jokes and hoaxes. There's no evidence that that happened in this case, and no way for readers to check either that this article is correct or that the subject even really exists at all. Wikipedia is not in the business of parrotting science jokes as if they were actual science, nor is it in the business of documenting jokes that haven't already been documented.

    This is wholly unverifiable, and transformation of a joke into what is effectively a hoax article. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A reasonable joke but not suitable for publication in an academic concept. Plays on scientific public image and sexist stereotypes (beards are not essential to the study of physics) and unusable in any case as a metric as beard growth rates vary widely, e.g. between European and Asiatic races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.45.215 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This obviously belongs with the millihelen and I find that we have many such units at List of humorous units of measurement. Kolb's version seems an adequate source for this and I have provided a proper citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kolb's version is a joke, as I pointed out above. You have just cited a jokebook as a source. Read its cover. That's the worst application of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline that there could be. Jokes as sources support having inaccurate information in the encyclopaedia. Please go back to the Five Pillars. We aren't aiming to have an inaccurate encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many a true word is spoken in jest. See Parkinson's Law for another example of how we may present a jocular topic in an educational way. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • By resorting to inapplicable ahporisms, you're reaching now. This isn't a case of a true word being spoken in jest. Nor is it a case of a jocular topic that has been seriously documented, as Parkinson's Law has been. This is a case of someone writing a mock journal article, in a clearly marked mock journal (the JoIR, mentioned above), that is republished in a clearly marked book of humour, and an encyclopaedist despite all of that taking that journal article seriously. Remember where the line is. We're writing an encyclopaedia here. We don't include intentionally false information in it. That's hoax vandalism, in case anyone is unclear on this. That's exactly what you are doing, though. Think on this: There's actually zero difference between your actions here and the actions of hoaxers who make up stuff and defend it by citing fake or silly sources. Your intentions are different, but your actions are the same. And you know that the source isn't factual, just as hoaxers know that their sources are jokes. If we cross the line simply in order to support a stance at AFD, then we're damaging the encyclopaedia to make a point. Uncle G (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Colonel Warden Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that User:Ucanlookitup is the nominator, who now seems to be withdrawing his proposal that the article be deleted. His willingness to keep an open mind is commendable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Colonel. I'm not technically withdrawing the nomination because I believe the process is a good one and will lead to a good resolution. I was however swayed by the points you raised. To clarify a bit, I was concerned that Wikipedia was being cast as the butt of a joke. Identifying it as a joke eliminates that issue. The background you added (and the later additions of Googolit), add a bit of historical context. Like Smoots, I think is worth preserving.
  • Keep/Merge. As an educator, I support keeping this article for the following reasons:
  1. The unit appears in Nordling and Österman's oft-cited text and, as corroborated by Member, Mr. Celery, and myself, has surfaced in physics lectures through the years. Its appearance in Google calculator further documents it, and allows educators to use it in fun unit conversion assignments.
  2. As implied in the article, this is a tangible example that helps students understand compound units including not only the light year, but also Foot-pound, Newton meter, etc.
  3. This is one of the most intuitive illustrations of the scale of the nanometer I've come across. The typical comparisons to a centimeter, millimeter, or the width of a human hair are abstract by comparison.
  4. In the spirit of the Smoot, this is a (somewhat) commonly used unit that brings some lightheartedness and accessibility to an otherwise dry subject matter. Like the Smoot, the beard-second is imprecise, but useful in order-of-magnitude determinations.
213.79.45.215, I don't see this as a sexist intimation that all physicists should have beards, but as an indication that at least one physicist either had, or was familiar with someone who had, a beard when he or she defined the unit. --Googolit (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep A joke (I thought the Beard was clearly based on the real Barn (unit) used in nuclear physics), but one which appears to be known elsewhere too. Astronaut (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only because of Wikipedia in the first place, and there's no reason to suppose that this article is accurate — a goal for which we strive here through the proxy of verifiability from reliable sources. The fact that the article now gives two entirely different values for the unit, based upon two different jokes, should be a big clue that this isn't actually accurate information from reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe it was an unknown joke, but the genie's out of the bottle now. Maybe it should be kept not as a unit but as an article about the phenomenon, with a note as to what the purported value is. Just because something wasn't notable doesn't mean it's not now. Metzby (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Colonel Warden to List of humorous units of measurement. The sourcing is not really sufficient for an independent article, but it fits just fine with the joke subarticle of List of unusual units of measurement. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sourcing isn't sufficient for anything. Have you read the source? It's a hoax. The front cover of the book tells us that. It's a fake journal article in a humourous publication. This isn't an expert writing a factual article documenting established knowledge. This is someone making up counterfactual information for amusement. The sign on the door here says "encyclopaedia", not "joke book". We're not in the business of taking clearly marked joke sources and accepting them as true. We have no evidence that this is an unusual unit of measurement. We have no evidence that it's a unit of measurement at all. There's not a single non-hoax non-joke source in existence that says so. Remember the sign on the door. Uncle G (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like Metzby's argument. We will find more legitimate sources in time. Alternately I support a merge to List of humorous units of measurement. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will we? What you appear to be really saying is that whilst we have zero sources now, and this information is clearly false, yet more people will start to believe the counterfactual information currently in Wikipedia, as many clearly already do, and will accept it as true, and that, eventually, good sources will document this, based upon nothing more than Wikipedia's long-standing promulgation, popularization, and affirmation of a joke. At which point we can turn around and use those as sources. That's bootstrapping knowledge into existence from thin air. Do you really think that the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to turn falsehood into fact in this way? Is that really your conception of our task? Uncle G (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article is not false or counterfactual. This unit is, of course, whimsical and not standardised but it is not so very different to the barleycorn, say, which is a natural unit which still has some currency in UK/US shoe sizes. From what is said above, this unit has some educational usage and we may be sure that these educators are not trying to mislead their students. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is counterfactual. Come now! You've read Kolb. You cited it. You saw that it was a joke. You saw the book's cover and saw that it was a jokebook, collecting jokes from the JoIR from over the years. It says so. You saw that the joke parodied real scientific articles, with patently silly citations. You know that this is a falsehood. Please don't pretend otherwise.

          We have an article repeating what that joke humourously asserts as if it were fact. Indeed, the article goes beyond the joke. The joke says that there is a "proposed unit". (Clearly, there isn't even a proposal for such a unit. The statement that there is, is part of the joke.) The article says that this is a unit. This is entirely different to the barleycorn, which is a seriously documented real unit of measure (to be found in non-joke sources, such as Jones' 1963 book on weights and measures), not a non-existent unit of measure that someone wrote a joke article about for amusement.

          Please think about what you are asserting here, and think about the line that you're crossing. If you want an article that really is directly comparable to this, it's The Dave (AfD discussion) — a joke unit whose inclusion is being supported with fake sources by editors who like the joke. That is a direct parallel to this, not barleycorns. Think about that. Your actions place you alongside those editors there, campaigning for the inclusion of a joke that isn't true in Wikipedia. This is the line that you are crossing, simply to support a general stance at AFD. Please don't cross it. Uncle G (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of humorous units of measurement. It is only "counterfactual" if we assert that this is a real unit. Asserting that it is a joke unit in a list of humorous units of measurement seems to be the proper way to deal with this. I don't see why "joke sources" can't be used as sources to document the fact that it is a joke. Perhaps if the "joke sources" were the only sources available it wouldn't even deserve a mention, but assuming good faith, it apparently did make its way into a serious reference book: Nordling's Physics handbook for science and engineering. I agree this isn't enough sourcing to support a full article, but I really don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in the list of humorous units. DHowell (talk) 04:51, 4 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 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Delahanty[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Previous AFD in 2007 ended in no consensus, but notability has not been established since then; none of the references provided consitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As I can't find any myself, I think it's time this article was deleted. Robofish (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem like he's done anything notable, such as winning awards. -download | sign! 04:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing that could even remotely be considered notable. Sorry Patrick :) Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to have life achievements (yet) to warrant an encyclopedia article. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not meet inclusion criteria. Adam Zel (talk) 14:16, 4 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 04:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen kumar gorakavi[edit]

Praveen kumar gorakavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical article about a student in India. Some of the claims here are sourced, but many are not; more importantly, though, the significance of the claims isn't made clear. Most of the "inventions" listed don't have readily searchable names (the one which did ("VASCAMODE") yielded zero related Google hits besides this article), and news coverage of him appears to have been limited to passing "human interest" stories. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable and badly written; seems like it's a self-written article. -download | sign! 04:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While there are two secondary sources [51], [52] that suggest some notability, they are essentially soft-news human interest pieces about a local-school-kid doing good; note the articles are published in the newspaper'ps Young World supplement, which is directed at a younger audience. Most of the article content is unsourced, vague, and frankly exaggerated/dubious. Abecedare (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete badly written + seems to be 'auto'biography + not referenced. Also, such little 'genius'es usually gets a lot of local media coverage, but hardly contribute anything notable so that an encyclopedic article is worthy for them. His current contributions are not worthy enough.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability is not established due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also appears to have been written by the subject. Adam Zel (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable.--E8 (talk) 16:31, 4 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. MBisanz talk 04:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martha M. Foster[edit]

Martha M. Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Earth Television. Looks like a self-advertisement. User XEXLLC (talk · contribs · logs) only made two pages both about her and her new company. Both references were self-written. Article is unreferenced. 5 Emmy's might be enough to make "notable" but I cant find them on Google. No idea how notable other claims are, e.g. a cleaner "works" at the Smithsonian ... what did she do? How notable are these others organizations? Thanks. Soulslearn (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If it makes a difference, and I think it does, the Emmys she won were apparently regional, not national Emmys. See [53] for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the only two pages coming up top on a Google search for her or the "TV company" are Wikipedia pages, thanks for that.
I think it does make a different. If nothing else, it proves the self-promotion angle even more. If it had been stated "region Emmies" then fine but the fact that a) they are region, b) they were unstated and uncited and c) that they were actually 'shared' awards with other people - on top of the other advertisement topic - makes it looks like self-publicity for a speculative venture IMHO. Soulslearn (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should have improve with more relate sources .Should not delete Jets (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If she really did win Emmys, regional or national, that seems notable enough for me. 7triton7 (talk) 06:36, 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 merge to United States government in Jericho. Per WP:BOLD. I kinda just dropped the text over there now; I'll go back and prune it eventually. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 07:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennings & Rall[edit]

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

J&R has no notability outside of Jericho. There are no third party sources, nor have there ever been. The article is nothing but fancruft and an extended recap of Jericho season 2. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Smerge (Selectively merge) to the article about the show. The fictional company is an important polt element, and the skimpy secition in the main article could be extended. This fictional company lacks sufficient significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to satisfy WP:N or to justify its own article. Edison (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on List of Jericho episodes right now, trying to get it to FLC. If you want, I could take a break from that to merge (my recommendation) J&R to the appropriate places, as it definitely important. I'd prefer if you could give me a bit of extra time for that though; I'm kinda busy at the moment, but could do it in a week or so. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 07:11, 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 05:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy the jellyfish[edit]

Jeremy the jellyfish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely unsourced. I went through The Muppets, and its characters, and can't find anything on it (so possible hoax). Either way, so sourcing and zero Google hits = not notable. TheAE talk/sign 03:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a hoax. And I'd be lying if I said that my childhood memories of Sesame Street had nothing to do with my knowledge of this being a hoax. fuzzy510 (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no question.Wordssuch (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Hoax. Not even well done. The dates in the 'Controversy' section are ridiculous. Both Sesame Street and Doraemon aired first in the 1960s. Neither was created in the 1930s. Peridon (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant WP:HOAX.... and not even a good one. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't believe this lasted a month. Themfromspace (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V as I could find no sources to verify this article's contents. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:22, 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 keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshalsea Road[edit]

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

Seemingly non notable London street. Seems to just describe what streets are nearby, and places of interest on the street. Source 1 is a link to a website giving showing nearest facilities. Sources 2 and 3 are links to a location page giving the location of this street. Source 4 regarding the Marshalesa Prison may make a good basis for a seperate Marshalsea Prison article, but doesn't appear to add anything to the article.Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:44, 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 MBisanz talk 05:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southwark Street[edit]

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

Seemingly non notable London street, mostly listing what is on the street. The history section doesn't really (in my opinion) establish any notability. If it was the first road with such features, it may be notable, but as it is just one of the first, I don't feel this is enough. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Just about every street in central London is notable, but that there's even a discussion about one of the major central thoroughfares, arguably the primary Southwark one, that connects Blackfriars Bridge and Southwark Bridge is surprising. It took only a few seconds to find g-book in-depth sources. [54][55][56] --Oakshade (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please justify the phrase "Just about every street in central London is notable"? Is there any central discussion on this, has any consensus been reached? Also read WP:NOTINHERITED Jenuk1985 | Talk 06:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For a city as old and historic as London, there are going to be sources on every street; historic, governmental or otherwise. Even without a "central discussion" I've never seen an existing London street deleted although it's been tried many times. That non-policy or guideline WP:NOTINHERITED comes from that nightmarish self-contradictory WP:AADD essay that's oft incorrectly applied to topics. The clause pertains to topics that do not pass our guidelines - ie, not the subject of secondary sources - which of course does not apply to this topic. --Oakshade (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • London street articles have been deleted in the past Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crosby Street. I could expand your "For a city as old and historic as London, there are going to be sources on every street; historic, governmental or otherwise." comment by pointing out the same could be said for the majority of names streets in the country. The line has to be drawn somewhere. No sources apart from the second one you linked imply any form of notability except for showing that it exists. On its own I don't feel it justifies the articles existence, similar to my previous point, plans, schemes and ideas will always be available for most streets. Jenuk1985 | Talk 07:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Crosby Street was a former street. I said "existing", not non-existing (although I did not agree with consensus on that one). Your opinion that the Old and New London source, which goes into explicit multi-paragraphed detail of this street, as not being an in-depth secondary source about this street is noted but not based on reality. --Oakshade (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a major street in Southwark, central London, with references and history establishing notability. I concur with Oakshade above. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note nominator also nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Street, London Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshalsea Road for deletion also. Ikip (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD was mentioned on WikiProject London Ikip (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Notable street, per Bowen and Oakshade. Ikip (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Since the Prod, there has been a decent enough improvement to keep. Well referenced enough, IMO. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 07:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All historic London streets are notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Union Street, London[edit]

Union Street, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating as this is a seemingly non-notable London street. In my opinion the sources do not seem to establish adequate notability, two of which are just the websites of places on the street. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:37, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons:Monster Attack[edit]

Nicktoons:Monster Attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's no evidence that I can find verifying the existence or future existence of this video game. Search for Nicktoons "Monster Attack" does not come up with anything (although there is an unrelated game called Ultra Keibitai Monster Attack). Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also adding the article Nicktoons: Planet Quest for the same reason (unverified). ... discospinster talk 02:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both titles are unverifiable. Thank goodness this time there was no Cartoon Network/Disney crossover like the usual hoax articles dealing with these games. Nate • (chatter) 05:06, 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. The lack of independent coverage (press releases don't count), tips this to delete. MBisanz talk 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Barrall[edit]

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

Notwithstanding the comment that "CEO is notable", there is no inherent notability of CEOs of privately held companies (or even listed ones, for that matter). The only citation other than press releases (in fact, and per policy, neither demonstrative of notability nor reliable) and and article penned by the subject is from a non-notable source. Bongomatic 02:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree with nominator. The Reuters citation, which was included probably to look like news coverage, is not coverage-- it's just a press release.  J L G 4 1 0 4  03:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not quite sure how notable it is, but the article naming him one of the top ten most influential people in the networking storage industry certainly conveys a fair amount of notability. I turn up a reasonable amount on Lexis-Nexis, including several articles he wrote for Computer Technology Review which seems like a reasonably good publication. I find a number of mentions in the Wall Street Journal, and sure a lot of what's out there is just press releases, but there are 19 Reuters articles that include his name. Many are just quotes, or passing references, but that's still something. There's also an article from Forbes, certainly a reliable source, that deals with him in some depth. In short, there is enough coverage in reliable sources, most significantly the Forbes and Top 10 articles. Cool3 (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Literally every single one of the Reuters references is a press release (see nomination on their relevance). The Forbes article is about a company (which may be notable), and provides no significant detail on the individual. I disagree with the inference you draw from the props from byteandswitch.com. Bongomatic 03:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Forbes article does begin " In early 2001, Geoff Barrall, a British Ph.D. scientist with a background in designing networking switches, arrived in the United States with a data storage system that he claimed could blow the doors off every storage box on the planet. " So while it's not just about him, it definitely does present him as notable. After further examination, it does appear that everything on Reuters is Market Wire (aka press releases), but those, per policy, can be source of information though not notability. Finally, I don't know what else to infer from the Byteandswith.com article than that he is significant and notable. Cool3 (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Cool3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RP459 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- No reliable sources showing notability (meaning nothing that's independent -- press releases don't count -- and nontrivial coverage of *him* versus other topics). DreamGuy (talk) 14:58, 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. spam, A7 Tone 16:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AspireCMS[edit]

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

Software that lacks notability. No third party reliable sources found [57] [58]. was originally prod but deleted by IP that previously added spam links to the article. Article was created by a WP:SPA 16x9 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only vaguely-reliable source available is the cmsmatrix one, and cmsmatrix is an inclusive site that attempts to document all available CMS systems, so only proves that this one exists. JulesH (talk) 10:39, 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 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StyroHawk kite[edit]

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

Minimally sourced article that doesn't indicate any indication of significance from third party reliable sources aside from that from the U.S. Patent Office. Existence is insufficient for a standalone Wikipedia article: third-party coverage by reliable sources are necessary. Prod was contested in 2008; another editor tried to apply a second prod in 2009; I moved the article to its current name as the original disambiguation was misleading. This had a {{refimprove}} tag from February 2008 before I replaced it with a {{articleissues}} just before this nomination. B.Wind (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article could be fixed IMO. RP459 (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no improvement in over a year; article doesn't satisfy WP:N or WP:PRODUCT. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (sorry, didn't see the previous PROD). Article's talk page has more comments (mine included) commented on the lack of notability of the topic and non-viability of the page. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 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 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeea[edit]

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

Contested Prod. NN musical artist. Fails WP:MUSIC. Dismas|(talk) 01:41, 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 00:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Moldova relations[edit]

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

Contested prod. This article, part of a spree of random bilateral relations stubs by the thankfully-blocked Plumoyr, is one of the more laughable. The countries don't even have embassies, and their relations consist in a couple of state visits and a few million dollars' worth of trade annually. No common history, no conflicts, nothing worth covering. Biruitorul Talk 01:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This page does not include any useful information and should be deleted. The subject is not significant. RP459 (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Canadian foreign ministry states that "Bilateral relations between Canada and Moldova are relatively limited." on its website at [59] which seems to rule out any chance of WP:N being met. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or, to be a bit mean, merge into this article. Dahn (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with RP459. Matt (talk) 03:33, 4 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 00:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oakdale Country Club[edit]

Oakdale Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable nine-hole public golf course in Maine. Does not meet WP:N requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:54, 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. The discussion indicates the clear availability of sources, and an excess of articles on this topic is not a grounds for deletion. If the number of articles is excessive, I suggest starting a merge discussion on the relevant talkpages Fritzpoll (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Holy See relations[edit]

Argentina–Holy See relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article had been prodded by Grsz11 (talk · contribs), as part of a massive spree of similar articles created by Plumoyr (talk · contribs). Because this article involves the relations between the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church and a large and important Catholic country, I feel that a closer look at the pros and cons is warranted. One example of recent tensions between Argentina and the Holy See involves Richard Williamson, the Holocaust-denying bishop whose excommunication Pope Benedict XVI wanted to lift. This is a procedural nomination, no opinion. Aecis·(away) talk 00:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note for clarity: Before this nomination, the prod tag had been removed by WilyD (talk · contribs), with the edit summary "bilateral relations are generally notable". Aecis·(away) talk 00:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations, the findings were inconclusive about the general case. Others might disagree - but in general, proding is a bad way to go. Many highly notable bilateral relations were in the mass nominating, in addition to some which might be unnotable. The general conclusion in Argentina-Singapore that I saw was that if countries exchange embassies, their bilateral relations are almost certainly notable. If not, harder to say. Do I necessarily think 99.99% are? Probably not. But for larger, more internationally active countries, or those with other bonds, usually. Argentina-Vatican should be a snap to establish notability. Cayman Islands-Vanatu relations would no doubt be more of a challenge. WilyD 01:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • [60][61][62][63][64][65][66]. It's very easy to find a variety of sources covering many aspects of Argentina's relationship with the Vatican, establishing notability via WP:N, and that it's not a single issue relation or whatnot either. WilyD 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This looks like a high quality stub/start. The subject matter, though obscure, appears to me to be notable. The article speaks to the subject well. The external links are useful. I appreciate this is something of a canary in a cage AfD for the many bilateral relations articles created ... is this is their standard then I don't see a problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have Papal mediation in the Beagle conflict, List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy, Abortion in Argentina, Roman Catholicism in Argentina, Church-state relations in Argentina, List of diplomatic missions in Argentina and, linking it all together, Category:Roman Catholic Church in Argentina. There's really no need for a stub covering the same ground yet again. - Biruitorul Talk 01:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would be interesting to know is why you feel we should ignore the standard of WP:N and develop a special standard for these articles? WilyD 01:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we call a loaded question. To the extent relations between Argentina and the Holy See have notability, they're amply covered in the above-mentioned articles. That I want this article deleted, and notable information in the other articles kept, in no way implies a belief on my part that WP:N should be "ignored". - Biruitorul Talk 02:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a loaded question, but that's only because the argument you're advancing is patently absurd. History of Canada + Geography of Canada + Parliament of Canada does not mean we should vote to delete Canada. That many sub-aspects of a topic are notable is a good sign that the article itself is worthwhile. WilyD 03:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, there's nothing "patently absurd" about saying we already cover the topic in much greater depth in about half a dozen other articles and really can live without a three-line hack job by someone who doesn't know English and is very close to being banned for the tons of similar garbage he's been spewing out! And of course, your Canada example is what we know as a straw man. We can and do cover aspects of bilateral relations very well (as we did until February 19) without a single article on them (some "article" this is, anyway); we cannot do so for countries. - Biruitorul Talk 04:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is patently absurd. We have a hard working diligent editor who has recognised that we have a disorganised jumble of information on highly notable topics that need to be organised better to make Wikipedia a quality reference work who is being attacked for it, and transparently notable articles being attacked as well. This article meets WP:N with more quality, independent sources available to it than most others around here. User:Plumoyr has contributed more to Wikipedia than I'm ever likely to, something I can respect (at least, in context). The whole situation boggles the mind. The Canada example is not a red herring - it illustrates the absurdity of the argument. While notability is not inhereted down, if many of your sub-topics are notable, you are too. WilyD 05:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you disagree with my perspective, but calling "patently absurd" the notion that stuff like this should be deleted, given that it's amply covered in far more meaningful fashion elsewhere, is out of place. I don't want to demonize Groubani/Plumoyr (a confirmed sockpuppeteer, by the way), but he's not a saint, either, which you seem to be making him out to be. If his hundreds and hundreds of articles were meaningful (you know, like more than three sentences), if they looked like France–Thailand relations, then you'd have a point. But "diligence" and "hard work" in creating junk is meaningless. If someone "diligently" broke rocks into pieces for a living, would that really be a praiseworthy endeavour? And we really can't tell anything about his motives, given his refusal to communicate with us: maybe he's just bored.
Breaking rocks into pieces is an important part of roadbuilding, so it may well be praiseworthy. Should I, as a Wikipedia, praise the person of good intentions who lowers the quality of the product, or her or high intentions which raises it? The thing to have in mind is the product, at the end of the day articles on these topics make Wikipedia a much more useful reference (though they obviously need expansion). WilyD 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, no they don't (Diplomatic missions of ... articles can do the job just fine); second, meaningful expansion on these topics is often well-nigh impossible (Bulgaria–Sudan relations, Malaysia–Serbia relations, Malta–Mongolia relations, and so on). - Biruitorul Talk 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the high overlap between this and Roman Catholicism in Argentina, the Canada analogy fails. We're dealing with a content fork here. - Biruitorul Talk 07:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, I think [67] this reference covers material that's really inappropriate for Catholocism in Argentina. Obviously the two topics are related, but two significant yet entwined topics doesn't mean we should aim to wipe out content and inhibit growth (which merging does). WilyD 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like we didn't have an actual article on the Papal mediation in the Beagle conflict... - Biruitorul Talk 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could this be merged with Roman Catholicism in Argentina? Grsz11 02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, or Church-state relations in Argentina. Having a third article on basically the same theme is excessive. - Biruitorul Talk 02:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When you have many possible merge targets, it's usually a sign that the main topic is notable, and should not be merged into the sub-topics. Merges into this would make more sense (but still be silly, there's easily enough content here to fill many articles). WilyD 03:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or not: we already mention each fact in the article elsewhere, so there's really no compelling reason to keep it, and any of those will do as a merge target. - Biruitorul Talk 04:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless, of course, we are trying to create a reference work that organises information. WilyD 05:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing "organized" in this type of informational flood. It is the exact opposite. These articles shift focus and create confusion about where to place the info, and are simply redundant to several pages. Redundant, not sub-topics: they are not fragments of a subject, they are mirrors of two subject, and their only future is in beating around the bush. Dahn (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Roman Catholicism in Argentina or similar; there's no need for a stand-alone article on so marginal a topic, and it could always be split out if enough material can be gathered and someone takes an interest in writing the article (as opposed to spamming pointless stubs). Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say that these articles fall within the almanac-like part of Wikipedia as a reference work. Having a separate article lets it be accessed from both articles in the relationship. The same information can be pasted into two larger articles on the two countries and would be harder to find. It is better to have one small one accessed from both. It really isn't an article on Roman Catholicism, it is an article on diplomacy. It would be like merging an article on Utah history into an article on Mormonism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Roman Catholicism in Argentina: these articles go around in circles, and nothing substantial is ever achieved. Since there is no (and will never be any) significant difference between the topics discussed, since the info gets inevitably forked or organized chaotically, and since no article is at a level where it really needs splits (even if it were, they would need to fit in with each other, whereas these articles evolve in parallel words). I object to the very concept of bilateral relations articles, but whereas I could be persuaded some should exist as splinters from fully-developed articles, this one is just someone's game of crisscross. Dahn (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quality stub, agree it fits in to our almanac-like content. Inherently notable. --Mask? 06:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if notable, how do you foresee this and Roman Catholicism in Argentina evolving into two discrete, fully-developed articles? Might it not make more sense to treat the topic under a single heading? - Biruitorul Talk 07:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite easily. The Holy See functions as a country, and works in a bi-lateral relations article. Particular aspects of Roman Catholicism that were important to the history of Argentina, or information about its history in the country would go in the religion article. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that the two would be mirrors. --Mask? 07:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I look forward to the day when that happens. I'm not confident it will, but I suppose we'll see. - Biruitorul Talk 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There's a lot of overlap in coverage between this and Roman Catholicism in Argentina, and as the articles stand right now they probably could be merged. Having said that, similar articles such as Holy See – United States relations have more information in regards to the history of relations between the countries (or whatever the Holy See is considered) which probably wouldn't work so well in Roman Catholicism in the United States. Thus, I'm willing to give it a chance to expand. At any rate, it shouldn't be deleted. BryanG (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same as BryanG. ADM (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the rare examples where those seemingly whimsical bilateral relations articles actually covers relevant territory, as witnessed by the article's references of Pope John Paul II's rocky relationship with the Argentine leaders. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Into Roman Catholicism in Argentina. I have no doubt that it's possible to write an article long on that topic enough that spinouts are necesarry. But currently there is no real argument for keeping the two seperate. Taemyr (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Above and beyond the likely inherent notability of bilateral relations between sovereign states, this article provides multiple reliabel and verifiable sources supporting details of events that demonstrate a meaningful connection between the two. Alansohn (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dahn. Grsz11 03:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "You can't nominate something without having a reason. There is no such thing is a procedural nomination. And I see references to notable major newspapers. You judge the article, not the person who created it. I see nothing wrong with this article, it meeting all requirements for notability. Dream Focus 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you read my nom? Did you read why I decided to take this to AFD? Because I felt that it needed more discussion than a simple prod tag. That's the only reason. I don't care either way about the article, I care about the process. And in this case I felt an AFD was a better process than prod. And the discussion I favoured is happening right here. Believe it or not, but a procedural nomination is very well possible. Aecis·(away) talk 17:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The newspaper references generally refer to Papal mediation in the Beagle conflict and the pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II, on which we already have articles. - Biruitorul Talk 22:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as yet another article about the relations of a non-notable intersection of countries. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bilateral relations are notable & encyclopedic; especially in this case where there are lots of interaction between the Vatican and Argentina. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a quality, enclopedic and well sourced stub and tag for expansion. Well covered by sources showing WP:N and no need for it to remain a stub if it can be improved. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:39, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CCMZ[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax. A google search brings up this Wikipedia page. Interestingly, google search also brings up several of those "lyrics" websites (the ones in which listeners submit song lyrics to a database) - all lyrics submitted by a "zachary", which so happens to be the name of the editor who created this article along with two other hoax articles. Coincidence? Regardless, a non-notable band. - eo (talk) 00:50, 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 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yesmoke[edit]

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

Advertisement for defiant cigarette smugglers or something; ""Yesmoke’s project goes well beyond competition against other producers. It is a battleship ready to direct all its resources to the financial downfall of the cigarette manufacturing cartel. The final objective is to extirpate the Big Tobacco blister from society". Orange Mike | Talk 23:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment removed advert-like statements. Remaining portions of the article can easily be corrected or updated to be referenced. --Sigma 7 (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even after Sigma 7's edits, this article still has major problems: 1) it is still promotional in the lede; 2) it is a content fork; and 3) it is a linkfarm. The company's (apparent) notability arises, not because of its business or its product, but because of its legal run-ins with Phillip Morris and the U.S. Government (the two cases deserve standalone articles instead of having this). B.Wind (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Two of the blogspam links were replaced with the original source, and the three others were removed since I couldn't verify them. My work here is done. --Sigma 7 (talk) 17:36, 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 keep Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of USAF Fighter Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command[edit]

List of USAF Fighter Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced list of barely notable details all of which are at the individual wing articles Buckshot06(prof) 14:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:LIST; it's helpful for navigation, and it's useful to have this information all in one place so readers don't have to go to each of the linked articles to get it. The fact that it's unreferenced is a reason for it to be edited, not deleted. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:29, 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) 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Baileypalblue. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sure, the individual articles provide the info, but do we expect someone to know what wings are assigned to the SAC so that he can find all those individual articles? That's what a list is there for. As WP:LIST says, "Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information". This one seems to me to be serving exactly that purpose. Chamal talk 03:45, 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. I'm going to withdraw this to see how things develop in the next few months. I'll revisit this topic after a while. Per a good faith email from the article creator. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotics[edit]

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

No outside reviews that I could find at all; seems a bit un-NPOV too. Please feel free to disagree; I'm not 100% sure on this one. The authors certainly seem notable, which is why I was a bit wary of nominating this. I just want to see what the rest of you think for this. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional vote - I'll go keep if the article can be rewritten to sound more like NPOV and less like an advertisement for something, and if more RS can be found. I'll vote delete if this can't be done. It's probably a keep, judging from the fact that most articles can be successfully redone, but there's always the remote possibility that it can't. flaminglawyer 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can see outside references; and the "seems a bit un-NPOV" is not a valid reason for deletion. It's a reason to improve the article. NPOV is only a possible reason for deletion if it would be impossible to write the article in a neutral way. So there are no valid reasons for deletion cited, which means the article defaults to keep. -- As a general rule, if you're not 100% sure, I suggest taking it to the article's talk page rather than AfD.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do know that AfD is not for discussion on how to improve the article. The reviews were the main thing. The three sources listed are a self-reference to the book itself, what looks to be a PDF version of the book, and a website selling the book. None of those seem like reliable sources to me. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but the article isn't about "the book". It's about the concept of chaotics. If the book were the subject of the article then the sources wouldn't be reliable -- but it isn't so it's hard to see that they aren't. I do share your NPOV concerns but I don't feel they're sufficient grounds for deletion.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Theoretically, the topic of the article is the chaotics. But I still don't see how this topic is notable if it is only mentioned in the book that introduced it. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I created this article as the two Chaotics founders are very noteworthy and this new set of strategic business behaviors is quite timely given the current economic situation. My apologies if I was too early with this as the book in which it is explored in detail has yet to be published. As there is a lot of offline buzz about this in the business community, I'm sure it will translate into many more online sources in the next month or two as the book is launched. In the meantime, perhaps the references to Chaotics "the book" could be removed. This was not intended to be about the book, instead I thought the concept and new school of thought are very helpful for today's new business management times. My belief is that it is worth keeping and updating as it grows. Lucase (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep marginally notable neologism. Sufficient sources appear to exist. JJL (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above please. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment per gsearch I still feel weak keep is appropriate. JJL (talk) 01:44, 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 Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judson Jones[edit]

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

Contested prod... Non-notable autobiography... Google can't find any substantial content about this person, and all I can find on G-news are mere mentions and a couple nominations... fails WP:N, WP:V, as well as WP:AUTO... Adolphus79 (talk) 03:15, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article does not establish notability nor could I find sources establishing notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – has played a few roles that hints notability, but no sources. TheAE talk/sign 03:09, 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 no consensus Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caner Malkarali[edit]

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

Was proded, anon removed prod with no edit summary. Non notable author. The article was created in March 2008 and still has no non trival reliable sources. Nothing found on google books [68]. A google search [69] for Caner Malkarali doesn't find reliable third party sources. Sandahl (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No reliable sources? What about the listed interview? Granted the current sourcing isn't stellar, but it's not non-existent. - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the interview, granted I couldn't read much of it, but I can't see that an interview is enough. I see Wikipedia, Facebook, Windows live and a college website [70] as the top hits. For an author I would have expected something here. —Sandahl (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is on Google Books fully depend on what Google gets to digitize. If it's not on Google Books it doesn't neccesarily mean it doesn't exist. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google book results in Turkish brings up links but can you determine from them how relevant they are? [71] and the article also exists here [72] although totally unsourced so I found nothing there to go by .—Sandahl (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Book Search Beta will not constitute a fully reliable source for many international authors either. If "Keskin Faik" is typed on Google, many Turkish online bookstores can be seen selling Malkarali's book along with some other interviews. 1 2 3--143.229.181.96 (talk) 23:34, 13 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) 01:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 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 Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Procedural Keep due to substantiated allegations of sockpuppetry. This AfD is closed as invalidated, but anyone may feel free to start a new AfD from scratch on this article without needing a DRV to authorize it. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Cannon: The Cut Off[edit]

Loose Cannon: The Cut Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape. No evidence it charted. Nothing on Billboard. Google returning mostly wikipedia mirrors, blogs and download sites. WP:NALBUMS JamesBurns (talk) 04:57, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 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 Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Procedural Keep due to substantiated allegations of sockpuppetry. Any editor may feel free to start a new AfD from scratch for this article, without having to go through AfD, but this one is being overturned without reopening. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grind Worldwide: Ca$his Part II: Capo Of Shady[edit]

Grind Worldwide: Ca$his Part II: Capo Of Shady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape. Did not chart. Nothing on Billboard. Google returning mostly wikipedia mirrors, blogs and download sites. WP:NALBUMS JamesBurns (talk) 05:11, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Changes[edit]

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

Delete: chronically unsourced and WP:OR article, showing no improvement on this point since its last AfD in 2005. No evidence that this particular meaning for the concatenation of these two words has developed any notability beyond that of orthodox geology, ancient catastrophism‎, etc, etc. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:43, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs a lot of work, but the topic easily satisfies WP:N and WP:V. It's not science, but it's a widely known idea among believers in various religiouns and cultures, and in particular among followers of the new age movement of the late 20th century. The term is also notable as a cultural artifact used by believers in UFOs and the paranormal. The page currently has a half-dozen book references and many more are available for improving the article. For example, Google Books shows 959 books discussing the term, and 126 books with the phrase "Earth Changes" in the title of the books. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:Jack-A-Roe's booklist seems convincing. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 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 redirect to America's_Best_Dance_Crew_(Season_3)#Crews. MBisanz talk 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team Millennia[edit]

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

Lacks notability. JaimeAnnaMoore (talk)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:25, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 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 00:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wallace (Interactive Marketer)[edit]

Chris Wallace (Interactive Marketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. This person does not seem to meet the criteria for an article on a businessman, which on WP:BIO would come under the Any biography section:

The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

The clear conflict of interests and the fact it has been tagged for months is not a reason for deletion, but is a concern also. Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:25, 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, — Aitias // discussion 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 05:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gyokuko Carlson[edit]

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

Non-notable co-abbot. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyogen Carlson. I didn't add this to the previous AfD as people had already begun voting when I was told of it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Same as the rationale for the Kyogen Carlson deletion - basically, no non-trivial mentions in sources to establish either notability or verifiability. Graymornings(talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd also like to tag on File:Gyokuko Carlson.JPG to the outcome of this article. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:23, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources indicate enough notability IMO. Aleta Sing
  • Which sources? The first and fourth sources are from the center's web site, which isn't a reliable third-party ref. The second source gives her and her husband a passing, one-sentence mention. The third doesn't mention her in the text, but in a directory-style "Resources" section at the back of the book, giving her name and the address of the center. The fifth source seems to be a Buddhist news site, and again gives her a very brief mention. Which of these did you think established notability? Graymornings(talk) 01:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note, how does everyone feel about a merge/redirect to this article as a compromise? The center itself seems notable, and some of the info about its abbots could be useful in that context. I think both the keepers and deleters here would like to see some of it preserved, but I see a problem in outright keeping an article with such tenuous notability. As I said above, check the sources. There's no better illustration of "trivial" on Wikipedia. Graymornings(talk) 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection, and I should note that the current WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week is Religion in Oregon, which makes it a nice fit. I found passing mention in a Willamette Week article: [73] and I'll search the Oregonian's archives for a more in-depth profile of the center. -Pete (talk)
A reference:
PORTLAND BUDDHIST EVENT WILL SHOW CITY'S MANY TEACHINGS
Oregonian, The (Portland, OR) - Wednesday, June 1, 2005
Author: TIM SULLIVAN
The relevant paragraph: "The Dharma Rain Zen Center was founded by mostly European Americans in the mid-1980s when it split from a California-based group, says Domyo Sater, a resident monk at the center. Its songa, made up primarily of white converts, has grown to 160 members.

Faulconer makes a connection between liberal Southeast residents and the growth of Buddhism in the area. "They tend to be people who have done searching before and are dissatisfied with the religion they grew up with," he says. Sater jokes that there are three kinds of Buddhists in the United States: Catholic, Protestant and Jewish."

-Pete (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not !voting because I have practiced at the Zen center she teaches at, but my opinion as a Wikipedian is probably it's not quite clear either way. On the one hand, she really is just a local member of the clergy in an area where her religion is growing. On the other, she's the co-leader of one of the biggest Zen centers in the country, and has been mentioned in several reliable, independent books. I would say that notability is borderline, but it's a BLP that's not likely to be a problem. A merge/redirect to a Dharma Rain Zen Center article might work fine, but I really don't see a pressing need for coverage of either them or the center in the encyclopedia. Steven Walling (talk) 05:42, 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 redirect to TalkSPORT. MBisanz talk 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Incenzo[edit]

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

tv sports reporter on skytv channel, fails WP:N, time given for sources to be cited, none given -Zeus-uc 20:06, 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, — Aitias // discussion 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Silber[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist, no reliable secondary sources. I'd also like to include File:Msilber.jpg, based on the outcome of the article. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:39, 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, — Aitias // discussion 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mars[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Recreated deleted material, COI. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Letsdrinktea (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree the article needs to be rewritten, but the subject and his art have been written up in multiple newspapers, which would appear to meet the GNG. Karanacs (talk) 15:52, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop wasting time. He is a well known American pop artist. The article is rather crappy, reads like a publicity hound press release, but, shit, how many newspapers does he have to be mentioned in? He's a known American pop artist according to his article on Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets the notabilty guideline - the article just needs to be slightly rewritten fuzzy510 (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slighty? But, yes, you're correct, notability is not an issue. --KP Botany (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs a major re-write. Its a pity the fuzzy image of him can't be deleted though. --Artene50 (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think "major rewrite" is a bit more accurate. We should ask the artist to release a better picture. --KP Botany (talk) 01:30, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all (magazine)[edit]

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

Promotional advert for non-notable magazine; tagged for improvements and references over a year ago. Orange Mike | Talk 23:00, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 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 merge to Wipro Technologies. MBisanz talk 05:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wipro infocrossing[edit]

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

Basically an advertisement stating how smart a move this acquisition was. Not encyclopedic content. Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Whpq. This reads like a press release. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It details a company merger. Merge it to the main article, just like what Zetawoof says. Alexius08 (talk) 04:25, 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. MBisanz talk 05:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Slayer[edit]

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

old page and there are no important stories about the person Questchest (talk) 23:52, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_28&oldid=1142645009"