Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 9 January 11 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevithathil Ninnum Oru Aedu[edit]

Jeevithathil Ninnum Oru Aedu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no need of a separate article on 'forward' to a novel. This article should be deleted and content merged to the page on the novel itself.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article does not explicitly or clearly about the article is about. If about a forward, a strong delete. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it appears that it is an article about a foreword to a book. Not a suitable topic. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This_is_Treason[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines. I.E. Non-Notable

  • Delete No citation, Non-notable, likely created by band member (user name is a compound of member's first and last name.) Article claimed connection to a major label(Metal blade) but i can't find a source for this information(does not appear on any Metal Blade sites/media) Likely trying to use Wikipiedia as a promotional tool. --LordDust (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing to suggest notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 07:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable and likely COI problem. Racepacket (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC - no tours, only CD set to come in three months, etc. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Amityville Horror 2 (2010 film)[edit]

The Amityville Horror 2 (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, Pop, and Roll[edit]

Stop, Pop, and Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per nom. From their Web site: "Stop, Pop, and Roll is on an indefinite hiatus." Let's help them along... Proxy User (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It seems more appropriate to discuss what to do with this article on the talkpage since deletion isn't really an issue. Merge, redirect, redestribute content... all of them can be discussed but not here. Tone 13:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Joseon Dynasty[edit]

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

Since the one-day-old newbie ADKTE (talk · contribs) refuses to regard W:Consensus, I raise the issue to here. The user in question has appeared to take out massive information from the article of Joseon Dynasty, one of dynasties in Korean history, without any notice nor discussion at the talk. And then s/he moved the materials to his created article, History of Joseon Dynasty. In fact, the new article is actually dealt in History of Korea and there is no need to have two articles on the same subject. The new article was proded by an editor, but the newbie solely insists that the article of Joseon Dynasty is too long, and should be separated. As I restored his undiscussed version, and suggested him to open a discussion and seek a consensus, but the user falsely accused me of doing "vandalism" and then reverted. And reverting his consecutive edits are "vandalism". As my suggestion, he opened a discussion at the talk, but urged me to follow policies (in fact his own policies) without further explanation. He variously quotes Wiki policies unlike his registered date on "Today" but failed to present the article should be separated. I believe that this article is simply redundant, so I think this should be as a redirect age after the whole cut-and-pasted edits are removed. Caspian blue 23:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Sahelian[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisment. Non-notable author, purpose of article is to promote self-published books. Sites no sources, references are self-published books by same author. Proxy User (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten burps[edit]

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

This seems to be a far from encyclopaedic article on a medical subject. It is written almost in the style of a self-diagnosis howto and some of it seems to be incorrect. For example, Helicobacter pylori is really a bacteria, not a parasite, as claimed. Both of the references given are just non-RS blogs. I think the content has simply been cobbled together by somebody, with little understanding of the subject, who thinks it is funny to call an article "rotten burps". Accuracy matters for all articles but I think it is particularly important that we do not give false medical information. Lets get rid of this article as unverifiable. DanielRigal (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a probable hoax; the subject does not appear to be an actual medical condition as nothing has been published about itGoogle News. The references in the article are blogs, so they cannot be used for sources. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- almost a speedy as nonsense, though not really in the scope of the speedy definition. DGG (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh, c'mon DGG, give us a chance to accumulate some nice sarcastic AFD vote coments. Btw, Helicobacter is a parasite in the sense that it depends on the human body for survival. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me, have an enjoyable evening. DGG (talk)
The parasitism article says that bacteria and viruses are not considered as parasites in medical terminology. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had rotten burps once. Tastes like chicken. -Atmoz (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rotten burps or burps smelling like sulphur may be hard to diagnose, but that's not really relevant. We write articles about diseases and such rather than the symptoms it causes. Smelly burps are a symptom and thus not a suitable topic for an article. It's the wrong way around. (especially because if anyone is looking for a symptom they shouldn't be self-diagnosing themselves according to our medical disclaimer). - Mgm|(talk) 00:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LOL. JBsupreme (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — neuro(talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floortje Smit[edit]

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

Contestant who came second in Dutch Pop Idol, whose album "peaked" at number 43 in the charts, and whose article's only reference is a single website. I can't see anything here not worthy of deletion. roleplayer 22:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MGM, do you have access to any of those pixies? ;) Drmies (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per MGM. And per chart success. And improved article.--Judo112 (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the nomination where in place before the improvements of this article. I also know that Floortje is notable beyond a one time event.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strident KEEP. And thank you to MGM for doing a "cursory" search. Nice job! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7 - no notability implied or suggested, and no likelihood of any being presented. Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel herring[edit]

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

not notable Church of emacs (Talk) 21:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Witch Trial (game)[edit]

Witch Trial (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Expired Prod restored at editor request. The article asserts no notability, and no news results here, so this is a procedural nomination. No view. TerriersFan (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is clear consensus below, both before and after the relisting, that this is an inappropriate POV-fork. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments[edit]

information Administrator note Reopened debate per request by User:Abd at my talk page. — Aitias // discussion 13:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another POV fork from Pcarbonn's attempts to boost cold fusion. Most of the rest were cleaned up some time ago, obviously this one got missed. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion for the gory details. This gives undue weight to one aspect of a subject that is covered more neutrally by the day at cold fusion. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly a content fork. No material worth merging into cold fusion article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Verbal chat 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOV, redundant and biased version of cold fusion--Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Vsmith (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. kilbad (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge This is not a POV fork and Pcarbonn, while he created the page, was not the principal contributor. There has been a continual problem with Cold fusion that reliably sourced detail has been excluded from the article because of alleged undue weight. Creating more specific articles brought back in summary style is the classic and suggested solution. The editors of Cold fusion were not notified of the AfD. I'll fix that. --Abd (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Changed to add Merge option which allows editorial consensus at Cold fusion to decide as appropriate for the needs of that article. Status quo would be Merge if claims here that the topic is fully covered in the article are true, but this leaves the material available in History for possible future use. --Abd (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely a POV fork, and the material can easily be incorporated into cold fusion. This was created by an Arbcom-banned editor while the main article was locked due to edit warring, and further edited by a COI editor describing his own work. There are few reliable sources that cover the topic; and no secondary ones that I'm aware of except for a brief mention in a biased book by a CF advocate. If the article is going to be more than a couple of paragraphs long, it's always going to consist of a lot of primary papers on both sides of the debate combined with a healthy degree of OR and synthesis. There's absolutely no reason why the points can't be covered in cold fusion. You could make the same (probably stronger) arguments in favor of nuclear detections in cold fusion experiments or experimental error in cold fusion experiments. As for Abd's comment, There has been a continual problem with Cold fusion that reliably sourced detail has been excluded from the article because of alleged undue weight., this is best handled in the CF article, at the RS noticeboard, or via dispute resolution, not by creating a separate article where we hold the sources to far lower standards than we do on the main article. Besides, the verifiable material and related references in this fork are largely covered in Cold_fusion#Non-nuclear_explanations_for_excess_heat...despite Abd's claims of "exclusion" of this material, no one has attempted to add more information to this section since it was created a month ago, so exclusion is totally unproven. In addition, the topic itself is not notable as something covered in reliable, independent secondary sources. It's barely notable by its coverage by primary sources. The two redlinks above are more notable. Phil153 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pcarbonn was topic banned, much later, and he wasn't the main contributor to the article. Yes, the COI editor (a critic of cold fusion calorimetry) was a major contributor; nevertheless, this doesn't appear to have been controversial. However, PHil153 is correct: the decision should be made by editorial consensus at Cold fusion. Not by AfD. As an editorial decision, it can be implemented with ordinary, non-administrative process, by merger through redirection, as was done with Condensed matter nuclear science, or, in the other direction, by removal of the redirection, depending on current consensus. --Abd (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POVFORK trying to remove criticism from the article by moving it somewhere else. As Phil153 points out, there are no independient secondary sources covering this, only primary ones. The "reliably sourced" material mentioned by Abd is actually weakly sourced material that was being piled up in order to POV push the fringe view from supporters of cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Calorimetry article is imbalanced or improper, it should be fixed, and what is significant about the topic should be in the Cold fusion article, in summary style. The topic of asserted errors with calorimetry, and the responses of experimenters and reviewers, should be covered in more detail in the encyclopedia than is appropriate in the cold fusion article. If the calorimetry article is used to "remove criticism" that would, of course, be improper, and should be fixed, not by deleting the detailed article, but by bringing back a summary that presents what's needed for the cold fusion article without excess detail. --Abd (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is that it can't be fixed because, even taking WP:PARITY into account, you are still only left with a few primary sources and absolutely no secondary source at all. How are calibrations of calorimeters so tremendously important to CF if you can't find not one secondary source treating them? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No idea (and I don't much care) how it got here, but the calorimetry is a crucial aspect to the whole CF story. This article deserves to exist separately for the undue weight reason already cited. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The calorimetry is indeed central to cold fusion, which is why this material belongs, if at all,in the article cold fusion. In its current form this reads poorly, giving grossly excessive weight to the speculative thinking of experimenters on the fringe of the field of calorimetry. I suspect that this article was spun off because the editor who created it knew that such imbalance would not be tolerated within the main article. The issues are discussed in the section "Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat" of the Cold fusion article. Until and unless there is significant mainstream support for the field of cold fusion, this material is excessively detailed and likely to be prone to gross imbalances of treatment for the rest of its life on Wikipedia. --TS 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's important then it deserves to be here, and if the quality is poor then it needs to be improved. Poor quality is rarely a justification for deletion when it could be fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be fixed, that's the whole point. There aren't enough reliable sources and it's a magnet for OR and synth. Have a read of the article - what exists is speculation by a few groups, claims of refutations, claims of re-refutations and further claims of re-re-refutations. It's a complete mess and can easily be covered by a section in the CF article, where it deserves and has a section. Calorimetry is just one aspect of cold fusion - we can write much longer and more reliably sourced articles about the other redlinks I included above. Do you support forks for those as well? If not, why this one? The bottom line is that the topic just isn't notable enough or covered in enough reliable secondary sources to write a separate article about. Since noone has written about the topic or the disagreement independently, the article is basically synthing he said, she said from primary papers between heavily involved researchers. Not really encyclopedic. Phil153 (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you covered my objections below in your comment below at the same time I posted this. Please ignore. Phil153 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is clearly an important aspect of the whole Cold Fusion validation/refutation debate and it deserves some amount of focused discussion. The calls of this being a POV fork are ridiculous. Calorimetry is not a POV. If the current version is biased then it should be fixed, but as a topic this is important. --GoRight (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can Wikipedia cover Cold Fusion at all?
Wikipedia has standards that are different to, albeit rarely actually incompatible with, mainstream science. Wikipedia demands verifiability and secondary sourcing, Science values truth and often accepts an idea of "self-evident truth" that is anathema to Wikipedia. With CF, mainstream science has simply abandoned it and no longer cares about studying the problem. There's truth available (accurate calorimetry discredits CF), but little sourcing for this because no one wants to work on publishing more of it. The pro-CF camp are still working away at it though, so the only WP-compatible secondary sources out there are self-selecting to be pro-CF.
So any article like this is naturally facing an uphill struggle because that's the emergent conclusion of the environment in which it's built. We can't change that much. It doesn't rule this article out, nor does it invalidate the need for this article. It does however make it particularly difficult to achieve a balanced summary from a skewed distribution of sources. I still favour keeping it, and don't let's be discouraged by the difficulty of bringing it to a state that's not a harmful bias. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. We have spent literally months trying to get the fringe POV-pushing scaled back, and now someone appears to be trying to undo all that good work. The topic of calorimetry in these experiments is not notable above and beyond the topic of calorimetry generallly, and the whole purpose of this article was always to act as an apologia for the failure of most scientists to duplicate the so-called "cold fusion" effect. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guy is the nominator, so this is redundant. --Abd (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe I missed it, but I think that those claiming POV problems have not mentioned one single example of something in the article that they think needs to be fixed to achieve NPOV. As GoRight says, "Calorimetry is not a POV." The nomination statement says that this article gives undue weight to one aspect of a subject; but covering specific aspects of subjects is just what we're supposed to do per WP:SUMMARY
    This article looks to me to be reasonably NPOV or probably fixable by editing a few specific sentences if anyone does point out any POV problems.
    I would be very surprised if there weren't a significant amount of literature on the topic of calorimetry in cold fusion, since it's an important aspect of what has been a widely-publicized, controversial and intriguing topic. Here are secondary sources I'm finding from simple web searches; quotes are Google snippets:
    • [1] An assessment of claims of 'excess heat' in 'cold fusion' calorimetry Undead Science by Bart Simon, Rutgers University Press.
    • "UK Experiments using three different calorimeter designs ..." Nature: [2] Published by Nature Publishing Group Item notes: v.342 1989 Nov-Dec p. 375
    • " types of calorimeter, should all be making the same mistakes all the time. ..." The Economist [3] Published by The Economist Newspaper Ltd., 1989 Item notes: v.312 1989
    • "excess heat Harwell put in a calorimeter which was controlled expressly to be ..." The Search for Free Energy: a scientific tale of jealousy, genius and electricity By Keith Tutt Edition: illustrated Published by Simon & Schuster, 2001 ISBN 0684866609, 9780684866604 p. 134)
    • " the configuration and placement of the calorimeter heating element and failure ... Other efforts to establish the existence of cold fusion have centered ..." Greenhouse Mitigation [4]Greenhouse Mitigation: Presented at the 1989 Joint Power Generation Conference, Dallas, Texas, October 22-26, 1989 By Alex Edward Samuel Green, Joint Power Generation Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Fuels and Combustion Technologies Division. Fuels Processing and Alternative Fuels Subcommittee Contributor Alex Edward Samuel Green Published by American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1989 Digitized Nov 26, 2007 ISBN 0791803791, 9780791803790
    • This snippet suggests some notability of calorimetry within the science, as I would expect: "The Calorimeter Working Group of this workshop was formed in April..." [5]Physics Briefs: Physikalische Berichte By Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (1963- ), American Institute of Physics, Fachinformationszentrum Energie, Physik, Mathematik Published by Physik Verlag., 1991 Item notes: v.13 no.50827-59123
    • "while others have used a Seebeck or related calorimeter..." [6] Heat Transfer in Advanced Energy Systems: Presented at the Winter Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Dallas, Texas, November 25-30, 1990 By American Society of Mechanical Engineers Winter Meeting, R. F. Boehm, Gary C. Vliet, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Heat Transfer Division Contributor Gary C. Vliet Edition: illustrated Published by American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1990
    • " Williams and his team used three different types of calorimeter,..." New Scientist [7] p. 18 Published by New Science Publications., 1989 Item notes: v.124 1989 Oct-Dec
    • A skeptic website
    That's without even trying Google Scholar. This topic seems to have a lot more sources available than Mucoid plaque, which was recently kept at AfD.
    In its current state, the article seems to be largely duplicating the topic of a section of the cold fusion article, and if that were all it were ever going to contain, it could perhaps be merged into that article if there's room to expand the section there (since I think it does have some interesting detail not present in the other article); but better would be to expand this article. I would like to see more information: what are the particular characteristics of the different calorimeters? What is a typical estimate of experimental error in the heat measurements, for each type of calorimeter, and how does it compare to the amount of excess heat reported? What are the sources of experimental error (for example, is some heat lost through the thermometer itself)? What are the calorimeters made of and what do they look like? What steps are taken to reduce experimental error? Let's keep and expand this article, and write some more articles on other specific aspects of the "cold fusion" phenomenon (or alleged phenomenon or "condensed matter nuclear science" or whatever such experiments are called these days). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The POV problems can be summarised as WP:WEIGHT. Various interpretations are attached to the calorimetry of a series of experiments, many of which have not proven replicable. There is already coverage in cold fusion where the measurements are covered in context, and this can be extended if needed. This article will almost inevitably misrepresent the significance of these isolated experiments to the field of calorimetry. --TS 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The links you cite aren't about the topic of the article, any more than they are about excess heat in cold fusion experiments. Much of what you've mentioned belongs in a general article on calorimetry or calorimeter accuracy, should Wikipedia choose to delve that deeply into a technical topic. The stuff that relates to cold fusion is perfectly well kept in the cold fusion article. Do you also support the following articles? nuclear detections in cold fusion experiments, experimental error in cold fusion experiments, reproducibility in cold fusion experiments, transmutation in cold fusion experiments, theoretical issues in cold fusion experiments, excess heat in cold fusion experiments? I ask because I'm not understanding your rationale for this particular article, when the other forks can be longer, better sourced, just as "interesting" and certainly as notable (with the exception of maybe transmutation). This is what JzG is talking about when he calls this a POV fork designed to give undue weight to one particular aspect of cold fusion where primary research and opinion rules and little verifiable has been written. Phil153 (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concilocusaphobia[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax; searches using Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar have yielded no results that might confirm the subject's existence. My WP:PROD tag was removed by the creator with no explanation given, other than the addition to the article of this text. Unscented (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if true, this would be a dictionary def and not, uh, suitable here. --Lockley (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the article's own admission it is a non-notable neologism. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a new phobia that has no documentation to support it. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a protologism or a possible hoax. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:SNOW has fallen upon this probably hoax. JBsupreme (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hire cars and drivers - India[edit]

Hire cars and drivers - India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This piece is an essay, in part a "how to" guide. It's pleasant, interesting and useful, but not an encyclopaedia article, I'm afraid. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It would be nice to make a temporary copy in the author's userspace in case he wants to republish it to a more appropriate site. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can also leave him a note and point him to the list of administrators who are willing to provide copies of deleted content. That stops us from having to go through an MFD in the case he doesn't do anything with it. - Mgm|(talk) 00:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is a how-to guide and not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A how-to guide. Schuym1 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete part is an unencyclopedic essay, the rest is already in the Tourism in India and Transport in India articles, with the exception of one sentence, which is not enough to be made into a separate article about the "Incredible India" advertising campaign. —Snigbrook 14:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all reasons mentioned . Boston (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou All. Thankyou all of you for taking time and reading my article and giving your valuble feedback. I accept all your comments and in light of Wikipedia policy I agree with you. I apologise for the my wrong doing and request you not to delete this article. Kindly give me some time so that I can rework with the article and make it a useful one for all the Wikipedia users out there. I ensure that it will satisfy all the Wikipedia guidelines. Saurabh2525 (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your good intentions, I think you need to think carefully about whether there is an encyclopaedic topic here before you do a lot of work on the article. If the topic is intrinsically unsuitable for Wikipedia then there is nothing you can do to make it suitable. That is why I suggested that might want to publish it somewhere else. On the other hand, if you can recast the article in a manner similar to Taxicabs of the United Kingdom or Taxicabs of the United States then that would be an encyclopaedic way to cover the subject. There is already a little coverage of the subject here: Taxicabs_by_country#India which is not bad but currently unreferenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Snigbrook's summary. ThuranX (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bleach episodes (season 11)[edit]

List of Bleach episodes (season 11) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has no sources to it, nothing was announced. SuperSilver901 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there doesn't appear to be any substantial information about the season at this time apart from an a list on upcoming episode titles. When the episodes have aired or sufficient information has become available the article can be recreated. Guest9999 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we don't create season sublists with only two episodes anyways, they are normally started on the main list, and then split out when they become sufficiently long. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history for season 10 says otherwise. It was started, then redirected until the first episode aired, then after the first ep aired the page continued being updated Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's the case, the method I stated should be the standard way of doing so. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 is pretty relevant here. Tone 13:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing Inferno[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable, unsigned band; no independent references; claims chart-topping performance on "BlueBox Hot 100", which doesn't get any Google hits either. Hqb (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A7 Article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The subject has not been subject to broadcast by a media network, nor has it been recognised in music charts or won any awards, so it fails our notability criteria for music:
  • Google web search brings up a myspace page, a bebo page (both social networking sites) and a blog. That's it.
Need I say more?--Pattont/c 20:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. I don't think it will get speedied, as much as we'd want too, because of the alleged "#1 on the BlueBox Hot 100".  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's not sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Ranma ½ characters (manga)[edit]

List of minor Ranma ½ characters (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of self-admitted minor characters from the manga series, all primarily one-chapter or one-volume characters that are of little consequence to series plot. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Absolutely no third party sourcing mentioning this minor characters at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fancruft is not a valid criterion for deletion, please be more specific and use objective criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 00:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's exactly what it is. "Minor" characters, only appearing in the manga and only in very small parts of it. I'll gladly go into more detail, if this gets even a single "keep". -- Goodraise (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Elaborating as promised: 98% of the article is plot summary (violation of WP:PLOT). The remaining 2% violate the original research (WP:OR) and verifiability policies (WP:V) with speculations such as "which [...] indicates that Yohyo is wealthy" or "he seems to be of at least Ranma's level" and comparasions with other characters like "[h]is personality and tendencies are very similar to Miroku the lecherous monk". As a whole the article's topic isn't notable by any measure. It passes neither the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) nor the previous or the currently proposed notability guideline for fictional topics (WP:FICT). A merge, for example to List of Ranma ½ characters, is also pointless, as these characters would be excessive detail to such an article. The characters are in fact so unimportant, that even after having read the manga multiple times, I couldn't recognize most of the characters by their names. That of course only applies to characters who actually have names and aren't simply listed by their relation to more important characters like "Shampoo's Father" or "Saotome family ancestors", or even simply by what they are, as in "Cursed Bathing Suit" and "Shotgun bean plant". - In short: It's fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT). -- Goodraise (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and my noms for the other lists (good catch). What this series needs is a list of the major characters, instead of a couple dozen dedicated character lists and 3 minor lists. Creating a list article for the main/notable recurring characters is no easy task given the state of the dedicated character articles, but needs to be done Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Minor characters are collectively important to the story, and no different from other articles such South Park. Btw: I should probably mention that the original article was split due to the original length, and that several of the characters such as Maomolin, Mint & Lime, Picolet and similar, are more relevant, but didn't have enough material for their own separate pages. Dave (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the "original" list was too long was because of the extremely excessive amounts of plot summary for this minor characters in ALL of the lists. And no, minor characters are not collectively important and per many other AfDs and mergers, they are particularly not notable enough in anime/manga series to have their own lists, much less three. Any that may have any minor relevance should be mentioned in the single List of Ranma ½ characters that no one has bothered making (despite apparently having time to make three lists for unimportant minor characters). South Park is not an ideal model for any thing, nor is it an anime/manga series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this list to an unassessed article tagged with an original research tag really isn't a compelling argument to keep the article, its more of an argument to get rid of the southpark list. (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every character in a series deserves an entry in a character list. Especially incidental or one-shot characters who have no role in the overall plot line—not that Ranma 1/2 has much of a plot line to begin with. If the primary characters aren't worthy for a list article, then the minor characters especially shouldn't have their own list article(s) either. --Farix (Talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Farix' summary says what I'd say. Too many unimportant characters, not needed for understanding the shallow plots of Ranma, which are 'character gets wet, character changes form, hilarity ensues.' ThuranX (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You left out "one or more rivals show up". —Quasirandom (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was involved with setting up this list as well as the other three minor character lists, but my interests and priorities both Wiki wise and in real life have since changed. Migrate the information over to the Ranma Wikia before deleting. --BrokenSphereMsg me 00:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (save a copy and migrate the information to the Ranma wiki) - We really shouldn't have lists of minor anything, minor indicates that the topic is not notable. Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the average reader; I highly doubt this information would be useful to anyone other than the avid Ranma fan. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and migrate the information.じんない 10:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Delete article but merge appropriate info to main article. --HighKing (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Ranma ½ characters (anime)[edit]

List of minor Ranma ½ characters (anime) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of (incredibly) minor characters, who appear almost entirely in single episodes and have little or no impact on the ongoing development of plot or other characters. Fails WP:N Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on-episode/ characters are of little consequence to plot and already covered adequately in their mentions in the the summaries of the episodes. Fails WP:WAF and WP:PLOT. Absolutely no third party sourcing mentioning this minor characters at all. Also extremely redundant, with List of minor Ranma ½ characters (manga) and List of Ranma ½ minor characters lists as well...how many minor character lists did this series get?? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also analogous to my comments on the manga list AfD: [8]. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Minor characters are collectively important to the story, and no different from other articles such South Park. Btw: I should probably mention that the original article was split due to the original length, and that several of the characters such as Maomolin, Mint & Lime, Picolet and similar, are more relevant, but didn't have enough meaterial for their own separate pages. Dave (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the "original" list was too long was because of the extremely excessive amounts of plot summary for this minor characters in ALL of the lists. And no, minor characters are not collectively important and per many other AfDs and mergers, they are particularly not notable enough in anime/manga series to have their own lists, much less three. Any that may have any minor relevance should be mentioned in the single List of Ranma ½ characters that no one has bothered making (despite apparently having time to make three lists for unimportant minor characters). South Park is not an ideal model for any thing, nor is it an anime/manga series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every character in a series deserves an entry in a character list. Especially incidental or one-shot characters who have no role in the overall plot line—not that Ranma 1/2 has much of a plot line to begin with. If the primary characters aren't worthy for a list article, then the minor characters especially shouldn't have their own list article(s) either. --Farix (Talk) 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deja Vu? ThuranX (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was involved with setting up this list as well as the other three minor character lists, but my interests and priorities both Wiki wise and in real life have since changed. Migrate the information over to the Ranma Wikia before deleting. --BrokenSphereMsg me 00:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and migrate the information to a wikia.じんない 10:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Better articles would usually result in fewer deletions, but even if this was a substantially improved art... list, notability still needs to be established. What encyclopedic worth does this wholly unreferenced article sport? That's the question that should be asked. seicer | talk | contribs 12:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ranma ½ minor characters[edit]

List of Ranma ½ minor characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of (incredibly) minor characters, who appear almost entirely in single episodes and have little or no impact on the ongoing development of plot or other characters. Fails WP:NDandy Sephy (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest any potential candidates for a proper list of notable characters be copied to user space? Unless you think you can create List of Ranma ½ characters itself? I don't think I'm up to the task myself Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't copy the edit history. Mind the GFDL. If any of the content is kept, this list can't be deleted, but has to become a redirect. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit Some of this is indeed unnecessary content altogether-. eg "Panda scribble" -some of it seems to be appropriate, possible compacted little. This is really an inappropriate AfD--the problems should be solved by editing the original list and removing the part that belongs on only a fan wiki. there is a point in such a wiki describing every background element in as much details as is discernible, but that is not what Wikipedia should be doing. Better articles would mean fewer deletions. Deletion is the last resort if there is no way to improve by editing. DGG (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Minor characters are collectively important to the story, and no different from other articles such South Park. Btw: I should probably mention that several of the characters such as Maomolin, Mint & Lime, Picolet and similar, are more relevant, but didn't have enough material for their own separate pages. Dave (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the "original" list was too long was because of the extremely excessive amounts of plot summary for this minor characters in ALL of the lists. And no, minor characters are not collectively important and per many other AfDs and mergers, they are particularly not notable enough in anime/manga series to have their own lists, much less three. Any that may have any minor relevance should be mentioned in the single List of Ranma ½ characters that no one has bothered making (despite apparently having time to make three lists for unimportant minor characters). South Park is not an ideal model for any thing, nor is it an anime/manga series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about the excessive plot summaries. None of us have had the energy to trim it down from when we entered, but the (immensely successful) Ranma stories are formulaic in the respect of being highly dependent on specific goofy items, objectives, and characters for every arc, so I disagree about them not being collectively important as such, but that a severe trimming of length sufficient to host all of them in one page would be preferable.
To explain the list(/compression?) point (which I personally don't remember anyone making before, but then I tend to be stray-minded), I don't think any of us present actually created the list as such, rather than it being gradually assembled by various contributors over the years, and hobbyism usually works in the manner of initial energy, but quickly wanes into disinterested frustration when it turns into a chore that you won't get paid for, and one does not know if the effort is futile/will get attacked or/and deleted anyway. The 3 old default 'maintainers' currently have barely enough interest to reverse the occasional vandalism, or insert minor corrections/modifications when the whim strikes, alternately have left it altogether. I am also not sure if I could format it according to the required standards/what exactly those are/if it would be wasted work that would be immediately deleted. However if anyone who enjoys (or has familiarity with) the series, and preferably has a knack for such things, would be willing to help out to improve the standard, and this would be sufficient to retain the page/complete list in some form as you suggest (while the lengthier versions are moved to Wikia by someone familiar with the community) this would be highly appreciated.
As for South Park, I thought that the praxises were identical for all major animated features regardless which country of origin, but may have been mistaken? I also did not intend to state that I agree with the creators' overall politics or bad taste.
Btw: As mentioned by someone else, certain characters such as Picolet Chardin, Maomolin, Lime & Mint, Pink & Link, or Kiima, Koruma & Masara may be important enough to the story to warrant separate pages. Dave (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly understand how the articles reached the state they are in, pretty much all the ranma articles suffer from the same things - bloated, badly written and lacking any attempt to meet wikipedia standards. Considering the size of the franchise, age of the pages and amount of text this is hardly a surprise. Plus I'm sure much of the information was either origianally copied from fansites, or just given minor tweaks before eventually being changed enough to not be copyvio. Certainly the randomly selected paragrahs I picked for copyvio tests were often incrediably close to other sites being returned by google. Unsurprisingly Furinkan.com can be used to show this to a degree, which itself manages to be both a fansite and a RS at the same time. However I really can't agree with the opinion that even more characters are candidates for seperate articles, there are too many seperate character articles for Ranma as it is and at some point they need to be considered for merging (not right now though). The main problem I see with the character articles (aside from quality issues and the number of them) is that peoples opinion of the "importance" of them is questionable. Most (I can appreciate a few may be excluded) of these "minor" characters for example aren't even minor, they are quite insignificant. An actual minor character in this franchise would be a recurring character who isn't always at the forefront of the story - a perfect example is Tofu Ono Or Jusenkyo Guide. Those are perfect examples of non controversial merges to a proper character list. Any of those characters you list should be in the main character list (whenever it is created), not in separate pages or another separate list. If they offer no importance in any form, they don't belong in any list and probably half of the character articles are perfectly mergeable too. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking personally, I did have some energy/interest long ago, and then made a severe effort to improve the quality of some articles, but don't have a knack for being concise and misunderstood some of the Wikipedia conventions at the time. I.e. I saw to it that the articles received any references whatsoever, but mostly 1st-level, and largely didn't have the energy to rewrite the entire articles into a cohesive whole rather than small columns or spell-checks at a time. However, I didn't consciously copy any of these personally written segments from any other site. There is also the problem that, while the series is arguably one of the most worldwide popular manga of all time, and as such certainly noteable in itself, as you say, the franchise is quite old, and as such not much is currently written about it in easily accessible/referred to website articles and similar. My local area/country of origin just had it released a few years back, which (along with the quirky, flawed, and unusual characters) explains my 'johnny-come-lately' interest, but there is hardly any of it left. If anyone who enjoys the series, can take an objective distance, and is good at compressing articles to standard would currently have the time and energy to drag up the quality, and migrate the rest to Wikia (which realistically must be done sooner or later) to not waste the information for more hardcore fans, this would be very appreciated. Dave (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every character in a series deserves an entry in a character list. Especially incidental or one-shot characters who have no role in the overall plot line—not that Ranma 1/2 has much of a plot line to begin with. If the primary characters aren't worthy for a list article, then the minor characters especially shouldn't have their own list article(s) either. --Farix (Talk) 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. deja three? If it wasn't notable in list one or two...ThuranX (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was involved with setting up this list as well as the other minor character lists, but my interests and priorities both Wiki wise and in real life have since changed. Migrate the information over to the Ranma Wikia before deleting. --BrokenSphereMsg me 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:LC items 1-4, 8, and 10. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaafar Aksikas[edit]

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

This biographical article was created by an editor who has an obvious conflict of interest, considering his/her username]] is almost the same as the article name. I tried to nominate it as a speedy deletion, but it was denied. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication that subject satisfies WP:PROF. Hqb (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment COI is not a reason for deletion, only cleanup (and only then if the writer of the autobiographical article didn't use neutral language - rare, but it happens). Being editor in chief of a scientific journal would satisfy WP:ACADEMIC, but I assume that the nom has checked this claim and couldn't find any sources for it. Is that correct? Perhaps the nom could also share with us what other sources he used to establish that the subject is not notable. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, WP:ACADEMIC says, "8. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area", which hardly applies to the journal in question. And in any case, it's not the task of the nominator to provide sourced evidence of non-notability, if such a thing is even possible. Hqb (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to prove "non-notability", but usually a nom provides some information on the (failed) efforts that have been made to establish notability. In this case, the article contains what might be a valid claim of notability and I am a bit surprised to see a nom that only says: "COI". Why does #8 not apply to this journal? --Crusio (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the link? Neither major nor well established: it's essentially local to Columbia College Chicago (though with a couple of external members on the editorial board), and has published just two issues so far. For the record, I did look the subject up on Google Scholar, but the results were also unimpressive. Hqb (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unable to find any non-trivial third-party mentions. This is one of the few third-party mentions at all I can find, but it doesn't really have anything to base an article on. --Delirium (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One publication without citations listed in the Web of Science. Assistant professor at Columbia College in Chicago (NOT Columbia University, which is a much more prestigious institution). According to his homepage, he obtained his PhD only in 2005. It doesn't help that the Dutch title of his "fieldwork project" contains a typo and is ungrammatical. As stated above by Hqb, Aksikas is editor in chief of a journal, but this is mainly a local Columbia journal, geared towards "undergraduate students, graduate students, and emerging scholars". Only 2 issues published, so the journal (and its editorship) are not notable yet (even though this seems to be a laudable initiative). No indication that the subject at this point fulfills the criteria for notability under either WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Despite the almost frivolous nom, I therefore have to come down on the side of delete, without prejudice for recreation once the subject meets notability criteria. --Crusio (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. As pointed out by Hqb and Crusio, not just any journal can be used to satisfy WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal).--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with all those who would like to delete this article. This guy is an editor-in-chief of a scholarly journal. The fact that it’s based at Columbia College does not make it local. Look at the submissions and the editorial process; it’s pretty rigorous. Many scholarly journals are based at universities and colleges, but that does not diminish their scholarly status/merit. Number 8 is clear “The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major journal in their subject area.” And major does not exclude a scholarly journal based at a respected/accredited university/college. Number 17 qualifies numer 8 very clearly: “Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 8; their Editors-in-Chief may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.” There is no other qualification of “major” in the policies. And this journal is not devoted to any one marginal theory. Cultural studies is major field (ebc2i). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebc2i (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 January 2009
  • Keep. As ebc2i indicates, this is not just any journal. One of the people on the editorial collective is the well-known anthropologist Jean-Paul Dumont, the guy who inroduced self-reflexivity in anthropology. Also, the person in question has several publications, including 2 books [9]and a fieldwork research translated into Dutch, which is impressive. I do not see how a typo in a title would not help establish notability. That strikes me as rather shallow!
Comment. Dumont also happens to be Aksikas's former PhD advisor at GMU.[10] I see zero independent evidence that this journal is generally considered a "major well-established journal in the area of cultural studies", but you are more than welcome to present some. Hqb (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that the journal is edited from Columbia College does indeed not mean that it is local, but the fact that most editorial board members are based there is a different matter. As for the journal being "major", we obviously have different interpretations of the meaning of that word. A journal that is geared towards student papers is unlikely to be major. The journal is not included in Scopus (which includes 16,000 scientific journals) or the Web of Knowledge (both Scopus and WoK cover many anthropology journals). As a matter of fact, no journal that I know of has been notable after only publishing 2 issues. That a well-known anthropologist serves on the editorial board is not very special either. Most new journals have multiple "VIPs" from their respective fields in their boards. The fact that there is only 1 here, again, reinforces the idea that this journal is far from "major". --Crusio (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Did you even read those three Google News links you posted? They are all from the same source, two of them merely list Aksikas by name and affiliation among the "guest readers" at a local event (i.e., completely trivial coverage), and the last one is an anonymous letter to the editor about that same event, and mentions Aksikas only briefly. How does that "meet WP:PEOPLE easily", exactly? Hqb (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An assistant professor, and it is quite uncommon that they have actually done enough work for notability as an authority in their field or otherwise. One major publication only Arab modernities : islamism, nationalism, and liberalism in the post-colonial Arab world and it has not quite been published yet, a/c WorldCat. [13]--the absence of page numbers in detail view and that the holdings are only LC is diagnostic. when the book is published, if there are major reviews, he might possibly become notable. Although humanities journals and those in the "soft" social sciences like anthropology are weakly covered in both WoS and Scopus as compared to other areas, Crusio's analysis of the nature of the editorial board is quite relevant. . The deciding factor here is that the gsearch cited by MQS shows nothing significant--the main hits are '"rate my professors" , internal college material and readings at the college. When one does a search, one needs to examine the results. DGG (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that as [14] and [15] show, this article meets WP:PEOPLE easily. I also agree that article might need WP:CLEANUP, but certainly NOT deletion. The profile of the personality we are talking about is pretty impressive; and it's not true that he has only one major publications; and it's true that one should check the hits, not just select a few. He has two books [16], a fieldwork ethnography, and a number of scholarly articles, including this one [17], which has been well-received and is cited in a major journal here: [18]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicklisa (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 January 2009 — Quicklisa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Interesting that apart from Schmidt, the 'Keeps' have only edited on this page. A Fan club? Peridon (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Another member of the fan club here! In addition to all the evidence that this article should be kept, I should add that this guy is also Director of Education and Media of the Moroccan Congress in the USA, as well as a representative of this body. See [19]. Maybe, that should be added to the article, but I think this article should be kept. I do not understand the comment about his new book not yet published; you can already read parts of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.69.212.108 (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC) — 206.69.212.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: this IP traces to Columbia College. --Crusio (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless it can be shown that this is a notable organization, this does not add much to the notability of this person. --Crusio (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this organization not notable again? I assure the IP address does not trace to Columbia College, nor do I know this guy personally!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicklisa (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the result of an IP address lookup using this web service: Lookup IP Address: 206.69.212.108; Hostname: l4.colum.edu; ISP: NTT America; Organization: Columbia College. --Eric Yurken (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant is that my IP address does not trace to Columbia College; I do not care about others! So my question still stands: Why is this organization not notable again?
  • Quicklisa, the remark about the IP address concerns the "strong keep" vote by 206.69.212.108 above. If that is you as your preceding comments seem to imply, then you !voted twice and should strike one of them. As for why this organization is not notable, I think that is puttingthings on their head. Why is this organization notable again? Any independent references? PS, please sign your comments by using --~~~~ or clicking the signature icon above the edit window. --Crusio (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any independent references? --Crusio (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I found that they are getting themselves out there as an organization: Maroc Post 1, Maroc Post 2, International Chamber of Commerce (near botom of article), Minbarachabb.net (1st paragraph), Western Sahara Online 1, Western Sahara Online 2, Washington Morrocan Club (a little over halfway down the page)... but again, I've never heard of them before. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cursio--Let's be clear: I did not write the "Strong vote" entry, but I was simply asking a question about the satus of the organization that the entry introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicklisa (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm getting less convinced about the notability, and getting a faint whiff that could come from socks or such. Peridon (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Discussion I move to close this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebc2i (talk • contribs) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There does not seem to be a strong consensus either way; I've discounted some comments on both sides, and the argument appears to be boiling down to how strictly one judges a source's reliability. I would recommend some work be done on the references either way, so that hopefully future AfD's can be avoided. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cabal[edit]

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

This article at first blush appears to have reliable sources to establish notability but when you look at them they're either blogs, or trivial mentions, or from early 1990s BBS' that no longer exist. The general feel is of an elaborate joke being played. At any rate, this article was deleted once before [20], and upheld at deletion review [21]. The level of current sourcing seems no better than the past versions. I'm not prodding this because i'm fairly certain that would be contested Bali ultimate (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: The fact that the majority of the non-notable articles he wrote were for the new york press seems hardly relevant, one way or the other.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin: The majority of the links are for the New York Press, which is notable and has its own wikipedia entry.travb (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is clearly written by the subject itself. Manhattan Samurai is literary name frequently used by Alan Cabal. It is clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs) 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had an email from Manhattan Samurai (who is indefblocked) asking me to state that he is not Alan Cabal. He has also asked me to point out that "the article in Details magazine mentions Alan Cabal in great detail as does Christopher Knowles' 2007 book Our Gods Wear Spandex". I express no opinion on either statement. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Christopher Knowles' book mentions him briefly once, "former Village Voice writer Alan Cabal". That's it. --Michig (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and apparently that isn't even correct (according to the article).--Michig (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I received the same e-mail as Stifle (I just check my e-mail less often then him), but I also express no opinion. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that the article in Details magazine was written by a member of White Courtesy Telephone about said band, which also included AC as a member - not what I would call an independent source.--Michig (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that even if there is a conflict of interest, that alone is not a sufficient reason for deletion. the wub "?!" 23:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO and probable WP:COI issues. Maybe speedy as recreation of deleted material? Verbal chat 16:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: The recent changes to the article have still not established notability per WP:BIO (or WP:CREATIVE), so my !vote remains unchanged. Verbal chat 16:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt i certainly have no opposition to speedy, as nom. It's just that my experience with attempts at speedy is that A. they're immediately contested; B. someone bites you for doing this or that "wrong;" 3. You then still have to start the AfD process. Just cut out the middle man.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I have had a similar email as Stifle's. I m prepared to say keep on the basis of his publications; possibly the article should emphasize those, rather than the less provable other material? Does anyone know the text of the article in Details? I point out that COI is not reason to delete, and arguments based primarily on that are not helpful. DGG (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete He wrote for the New York Press, CounterPunch, and Gallery; but nothing has been written about him in return. I feel those magazines just aren't scrutible enough to assert his notability as being a writer for them. On the other side of the story, I feel a comment is in order about the point of the nomination, since the most vocal defender of this article has recently been blocked. Themfromspace (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many non-blog articles that speak about Cabal and his articles would you like? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must express my gratitude for the amusement that both the page and the arguments against it have provided me. "Stealthepiscopalian" is an idiot: I didn't write the article, and I have never used "Manhattan Samurai" as an alias. Anyone with the research skills of a competent high school student could verify that. The funniest material here is the assertion that "Cabal" is an improbable surname and the truly retarded assertion that I "won" an appearance on The Patty Duke Show in a radio contest. That material from the article is also verifiable by anyone with minimal research skills. This sort of puffery and buffoonery is why Wikipedia is generally considered an unreliable source by professional journalists. Thanks for the laughs! ---Alan Cabal (email redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.29.146 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you come here (assuming this is the non-notable Mr. Cabal) to cast insults and make a backhanded argument for keeping "your" article. Amusing indeed.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion lends itself to insults on an otherwise boring Saturday afternoon. It reminds me of high school. I don't make "backhanded arguments", I crap on the carpet, blow my nose in the curtains, and head for the nearest biker bar. ---AC

You know a good biker bar with wi-fi in manhattan? That's the sort of info that might encourage me to withdraw my nomination.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Hells Angels Manhattan digs are here: 40.72516300, -73.98829600, there has to be a bar nearby... Proxy User (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no cabal. Oh, wait. Lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. COI and BLP issues suggest an agenda at work. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Cuban, like my demented adoptive father. It has no relation to the English word, "cabal." Clive Barker might have been onto something, but as a murderous Communist born-again, you wouldn't know about that. I do like your vicious assaults on automobile drivers, though. ---AC

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I find very unlikely that the article was not written by its subject. Take for instance the last paragraph: "Bemoaning the loss of its iconoclastic edge, Cabal resigned from the New York Press on March 3, 2005, the day after the newspaper ran a controversial satire by Matt Taibbi titled "The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope"". This bit of information is sourced from a comment made by Alan Cabal himself on an article in Fast Company. The article itself didn't mention Alan at all; Fast Company allows blog type replies to articles. That's where Alan posted his view, which is used as source in the wiki article. You'd have to be a berserk fan of Alan Cabal to know where to look for this or, far more likely, Alan himself. It all reads like an embittered out of work journalist is trying to pen his own epitaph. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xasodfuih must be suffering from roid rage. I'm about as "embittered" as a raccoon in a Whole Foods dumpster, and I am currently insanely overemployed building stage sets out here in California. I haven't written anything in years. Say something once, why say it again? I am feeling somewhat vindicated by 2008. I didn't write any of it. ---AC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.9.137 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • And your point is? Whether or not he wrote it himself, we have no policy against writing about yourself, despite the number of people who seem to think we do. Comment on content, not the contributor; is the subject of the article notable, is the information in the article verifiable, and is the article reliably sourced? – iridescent 22:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I knew there had to shady stuff going on here, but this is impressive. So, I can post something on blog somewhere as a reply to some article that isn't about me, and then use my blog post as a source for a fact in an article about myself? By that standard anyone can become notable by spamming some blogs with posts and quoting them on Wikipedia. Who knows why he's not working for NYP, maybe they've fired his ass for trolling. Iridescent, since you're and admin, shouldn't you be more worried that MS seems to be evading his block? Or that he's attacking other editors right on this page? Or are you a fan of his? Xasodfuih (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of him and have no opinion on this article. Do you see any "keep" from me here? Go read WP:COI and WP:AGF before you take this conversation any further. – iridescent 00:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

""speedy keep -- Manhattan Samurai cohould have an upportunity to defend this article and his good name for othese unsourced accausiatons of evading blcoks and sockpuppeting. has he been notified of this thread or of these allegations bein directed towards his personalization? And this article has already survived 1 article-for-deletion and 1 deletion review; these repetated nominatins are bodrdering on WP:POINTy. Notability, reliable sources, and verifiability exist in the necessar y quantifiabities and in fact exist in overabundance. this is growing absolute. Smith Jones (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I looked carefully at the sources, and most are articles written by AC or don't mention him at all. Mr. Cabal should publish his autobiography elsewhere. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. What's left now is generally verifiable information. No need to delete this. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prevvious deleton from which iw spoke was true, but the deletion revie wa sclsoed at our behest. Manhattan Samurai and i collaboed with an admin to have the aritcle draft placed on my userpage;ffrom there, we were able to conduct an extensive revison of the text therein and redefined the articles so that they fight within the Wikipedian parameters. as a result of this work, the article currently meats all applicalbe standards from which you derive your theyfacto objections and therefore it should be kept. Please re-revise the sources as yuo clearly did not look clearly enough that athem to derive the correct ascertation as to their compliance with the rules. Smith Jones (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment would al oyu mind citing your sources that say that alan cabal was cnnected with this article in anyway shape or form? there is noe vidence to even suggest that he has ever been on wikipedia, much less been a part o the work that i sused to create this article. please cite your sources/evidence or please sotp with the WP:ABF attempts as they might be conidserd as a distracting element in this process. Smith Jones (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er… There is extremely good evidence that AC is active on Wikipedia! – iridescent 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • someone CLAIMED int o be alan cabla. i can claim to be you right noaw and go troll some other pages but that doesnt mean that its evidence saying that you are trolling pages. alan cabal as far as ic an tell is some sort of jouranlist or reporter and hardly has time to mess around vandalizing wikepedia. he has his reputaiton to consideraat the very least if he was caught being rude on the talk page of aprominent encyclopedia. Smith Jones (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seconded. Unless you have hard evidence, never assume people are who they say they are. Themfromspace (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Bylines aren't bios. The sources we are meant to build this biography from are pretty thin, and we tend to delete biographies on journalists whose most famous google hits are their works, not themselves. Protonk (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - per nom Theserialcomma (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - non-notable. sources are blogs or trivial mentions. this was afd'd before and the current version is the authorrs attempts grasping at straws to fill the reference section. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CLOSING ADMIN PLEASE NOTE: I removed much of the material that was the concern of the above editors. Could you userfy this page before your delete it? Most of the links are from the New York Press, a notable publication. I note: Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." It is obvious that this article has problems, but why not improve it, or discuss the problems on the talk page first? The policy WP:PRESERVE states, Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to... This was never done. travb (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as being properly sourced and well written, despite any WP:UGH !votes. And allegations about authorship matter not as the article now belongs to Wiki. Going down the list of current references, and with respects to the nom, New York Press, Details (magazine), New York Times, Daily News, Fast Company (magazine), Time (magazine), Institute for Historical Review, Arts and Letters Daily, Adelaide Institute, Rheingold.com, wymaninstitute.org, and the multiple books being referenced are not blogs. Repeated claims that these sources are blogs seems indefensible. I ask the closing admin to take careful note of those. The subject easily passes WP:AUTHOR despite his subject matter being decried. Further, and to address some of the other WP:WAX arguments for deletion: Even were it to be confirmed (and it has not been... only alleged), authoring one's own article is NOT against policy NOR against guideline... just discouraged because of concerns for POV and COI... which are now a matter for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Bylines aren't bios is an interesting way to opine delete... as the article is sourced to bios and the "bylines" WP:Verify his being an author... and the "g-hits" to his works further underscore his passing WP:AUTHOR. Why is this even here?? Send it to cleanup. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, he wrote in many small publications, but he was never written about. That's what determines notability, how much is written about the subject. Not how much the subject writes. Themfromspace (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would seem that "small publications" is a subjective term. I did not know that Wikipedia considred New York Press and CounterPunch to be non-notable publications. Thank you for your opinion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No matter what my opinion is, if there is no collective body of work, independant of the subject, that details him then he fails Wikipedia's general notability requirement and the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Themfromspace (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails Bio. BigDuncTalk 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask -- no reliable sources establish that he is widely cited as creating a new concept, or has a body of work deemed notable by the profession (or any secondary sources), or in any other way has done anything notable except write some articles that have not achieved wide fame, acclaim, or infamy. Millions of people have written articles. That's why he fails on those criteria.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually wishing to know his reason for such a short response... now he can simply copy-paste yours. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bali ultimate I couldn't have said it better. BigDuncTalk 19:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So obviously I want this article to stay. I wrote a large part of it with Smith Jones. Alan Cabal is one of New York's great iconoclasts. He was heavily involved in the Occult scene from the 70s all the way into the 90s. Some of the books were used to source the "occult renaissance" that took place during those years, of which he was an integral part. See Christopher Knowles' book Our Gods Wear Spandex for direct linkage of Alan Cabal to the "occult renaissance". He performed on stage in one of Ron Athey's shows (an extreme performance artist) during the 90s. He was heavily involved in OTO's administration and then in the 90s was a part of a fairly significant BBS called Echo. Time magazine includes him in a list of Internet bohemians and online celebrities in the very first sentence of an article about a Hacker Homecoming. Then there was the band White Courtesy Telephone that he and some friends formed and their story is described in a Details magazine article called "Rock 'n Roll Fantasy" written by Rob Tannenbaum. His defense of a controversial historian in 2004 also got him mention in the press. Cabal is an iconoclast. That's all for now. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: These two blog posts at GetReligion.org provided more Alan Cabal-specific sourcing that may be of interest. The contributors are professionals as you can see from their masthead:

*comment Both of the above "sources" are to a blog, that cites a comment Cabal allegedly made in the blog/comment thread of another article. I hope you recognize why these can not be considered reliable sources for anything.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far there's no evidence that this is properly sourceable. Our own editors' opinions that he's great don't count for anything. Delete unless it can be properly sourced. Hint for those who are encyclopedia-impaired: articles that he wrote are not the same as sources about him. Friday (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject appears to be notable and the article's sourcing looks to be in order. It is difficult to comprehend the vain attempts to obscure the issue of notability with the careless, vague and unsubstantiated COI charges (which, on its own terms, is not a valid reason for deletion). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is certainly verifiable that the subject has written articles for various publications. However, that alone isn't enough to meet either the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for creative proffessionals. Both require some form of independent coverage or commetary (which, as with all Wikipedia content, should be from reliable sources) of either the individual or their work; the article does not make it apparaent that this exists for the subject and that has not changed since the article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Cabal six months ago. As Id on;t see the pice developinf from beyond a bibliography/CV into an encyclopaedia article that meets Wikipedia's quality standards. Guest9999 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As asked above, how many non-blog articles that speak about Cabal and his articles would you like? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--The article has good sources and just the fact that he has been published by national magazines should be enough to meet WP:N. Notability is not temporary.--J.Mundo (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, He may be notable - but the reference section certainly doesn't show it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So wouldn't that mean cleanup and sourcing is the concern, and not deletion? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not per my nomination. I believe this subject, and the article that seeks to reflect it, continues to define non-notability. Others may disagree. But the fact remains: No sufficient reliable sources to establish notability or otherwise enable independent verification of its claims.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I was asking Kim D. Petersen]] for clarification. Your views are known by the act of nomination. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*'cmt excuse ME. But if you ask a question in an AfD anyone is likely to answer it.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, understood. I should have made a point in my question that it was directed at that specific editor, and that I was simply trying to get a clarification from him about his comment. Please do not take that as any slight on your own efforts. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
clearly the user objec ts primairly to the sourcing on the referencesetction. in which cas e Manhattan Samurai and i jushould be handled a ::few more months to in order to vacate the necessary sources and implantify them into hsi article. as per WP:POLICYSmith Jones (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i can see, you've already had time enough to establish notability. And since that (claimed) notability isn't reflected in the article, my !vote is delete. Notability is the first thing to establish in an article, and that must be reflected in the references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
With respects to User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, Wiki has no deadline and AfD's usually run about 5 days. One must grant, especially if one feels there is no notability, that such a search might take more than a few hours. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i have estalbihsed notability and verifabitliy beyond a shadow of doubt. i count at present TEN wrock solid sources present within the aritcle. the fact that they hav eperpetualy been overooked discounted makes them look not to be as useful as they really are Smith Jones (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry? Cabal apparently was once a child actor (2 refs), was he a notable child actor? (0 refs). There is one article, where a friend describes his experiences with Cabal (1 ref), Cabal apparently has written one article that has been noted (4 refs). +2 refs that are authored by Cabal. There is no 3rd party biographical material at all..... And you call that rock-solid notable?--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??? Is it now required that the article have a lengthy bio? I would think that notability as asserted and sourced is to be found in his career and not his birthplace or education. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, lengthy bio's are not required. But establishing notability is. What is his standing as a journalist? Awards, 3rd party biographies or other 3rd party mentioning etc. etc. Those are the things that establish notability. So far i can determine that he apparently is a journalist, with apparently only one article to his name that is semi-notable, we have some trivia about child-acting. Where is the meat? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far... Zundelsite, April 27 2001, by Ingrid A. Rimland, "Good Morning from the Zundelsite:", where she speaks of Cabal and an article Cabal wrote after his return from the International "Revisionism and Zionism" Conference in Beirut... and The Jewish Press, March 19 2003, a decent little article by senior editor Jasom Maoz, "Media Monitor", where he speaks about Cabal, an email Cabal had sent him, Cabal's work at the New York Press and Cabal's attitude... and The Institute for Historical Review, March 26 2004, "Some Good News in the Zundel Case: Weber On The 'Jeff Rense' Show ", speaking about an interview of Mark Webber by Jeff Rense, where Webber was speaks about Cabal and Cabal's controversial CounterPunch article... and The National Alliance, April 3 2004, "Jewish Supremacism Exposed: An Interview with Mark Weber, part 1, by Kevin Alfred Strom", where Weber speaks in depth about Cabal and the controversial CounterPunch article (not the same interview as April 3)... and The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, "Holocaust Denial: A Global Survey - 2004 by Alex Grobman & Rafael Medoff", where it speaks toward Cabal and his article in the February 2004 issue of CounterPunch... and Get Religion, March 5 2005, by Jeremy Lott, "Full court New York Press", speaking about Cabal, Cabal's resignation from The New York Press and Cabal's controversial views... and still looking. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You consider Zundelsite a reliable source? The others vary from very brief mentions to slightly less brief mentions. If the only thing people have mentioned is Cabal's article defending a holocaust denier, that can be mentioned elsewhere - it doesn't justify an article on Cabal.--Michig (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After further research, no... I do not. I was only offering what I found. Zundelsite would be an RS only to a Nazi supporter... and that ain't me. I personally deplore anyone who tries to deny that millions died in German death camps, so I have striken that one. The only point here being that for good or bad... Cabal has published for a Notable publication, and received attention (minor but not trivial) for it in other Notable publications. His rudeness in 2003 to The Jewish Press was covered by the senior editor himself. His CounterPunch article made waves and was covered. Hie resignation from the New York Post itself made waves and was covered. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? It was "covered" on a blog by a friend of his, sourced to a comment that someone saying they were Alan Cabal left on the comment thread of another article. Waves? Hardly a ripple here.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands this article meets our core policies for content. It is verifiable, neutral and it based on published facts. Alan Cabal is known. He is mentioned by name as being an author. He is quoted. There are enough references of him in various sources to confirm that he is known by name. I don't think it has been seriously doubted in the first AfD or the DRV or this AfD that AC exists or that he is a writer or that he has an internet reputation (there are enough web and book sources for that) - what is doubted is proof of a Wikipedia standard of notability. Wikipedia notability is a community observation based on criteria that emerge from community discussions in places like this AfD. On some topics we have no doubts, and there is no need for discussion. On other topics there is a grey area so we draw up guidelines. The guidelines change as circumstances change and as Wikipedia develops and grows. And the guidelines inform our discussions, but do not rule them. We have a topic here where we have a writer who is known. Clearly. He is mentioned and quoted: [22], [23], [24], [25]. He is used as a source in at least one Wikipedia article - [26], and in other documents - [27]. What is at issue here is if there is enough material available to establish if Alan Cabal is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The judgements people are using tend to go back to the exisiting Wikipedia guidelines rather than to examining the actual material we have, and the genuine debate to reach a conclusion. The material is certainly borderline. There is evidence that he is quoted, but the evidence is sometimes such that we are not even sure if it's the same Alan Cabal being mentioned. However, my feeling back at the first AfD, where I changed my mind from Delete to Keep, was that there is enough stuff here to say that people are aware of Cabal and are quoting him. That our current guidelines are written to exclude petty bloggers who write about themselves and then by default also end up excluding the more interesting and noteworthy writers is something that needs attention. In the first AfD there wasn't a clear consensus to delete, but it was deleted, and then the resulting DRV was prevented from a meaningful discussion by Manhattan Samurai's constant interjections which tended to confuse maters and annoy people. I think that under Wikipedia's current notability guidelines Alan Cabal is fairly borderline, and this shows up a need for us to look at those guidelines. Keep, but on the principle of the thing - in the big scheme of things, that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on a writer who has less Ghits than me is no big loss. SilkTork *YES! 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But he still doesn't meet any notability guidelines! Wikipedia is reputable because of its notability guidelines and statements like "That our current guidelines are written to exclude petty bloggers who write about themselves and then by default also end up excluding the more interesting and noteworthy writers is something that needs attention." are far off the mark as Wikipedia isn't intended as a vehicle of promotion. It's intended to document the existing notability of people, not create notability of the petty bloggers without any established reputation. Themfromspace (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - it was a long comment, and I don't blame anyone for getting lost. My point is that the article meets our core content policies. There is a debate about notability. The guidelines are there as the summary of previous discussions to help inform us during current discussions. The guidelines do not decide if an article should remain or not. We do that in our discussion that is taking place here. It has become clear in all three discussions that have taken place on this article that the guidelines are not helpful enough in this case, and that this is borderline. It's helpful in borderline cases where existing guidelines are not clear or helpful enough, or are potentially failing, that we seek to examine the case on its merits - and possibly from the resulting discussion to adjust or strengthen our notability guidelines. In order to make Wikipedia a valuable and navigatable resource, as well as keeping our credibility by not having articles on the dog next door, we try to decide amongst ourselves as a community what we feel is worthwhile or notable. In borderline cases we tend to default to keep. But we do not seek to deliberately exclude articles on people who are quoted and mentioned by name in several published texts that we have classed as reliable. The current wording of the guidelines seeks to exclude people who are simply mentioned in passing, and the situation here is that there is a lack of focus in the mentions. However, there are more than one mentions and quotes. And these are backed up by considerable internet blog mentions. We don't regard blogs as reliable - however, in any discussion we are not ruled by the guidelines (and please go into the guidelines to look at the wordings which always strive to make it clear that the notability decisions should be thought about and that the guidelines are not the last letter of the law, but are simply "guidelines"), and we use common sense. We have an author who is mentioned on numerous "big name" blogs, is mentioned and quoted in reliable sources, and who is a verifiable author. It's the accumulation of all these things that indicates that the person is notable enough for a standalone article. I hope that's a bit clearer! SilkTork *YES! 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exuc seme??? How is alan Cabal being a pretty bloggeR? do you have a idea you has dealing with??? This is a man who has worke dfor CounterPunch magazine estenveiyly as well as the New York Times.
his is a moderately promenent literatist and writer who has contributed to some fairly not able scandals. i agree that he is no t as famous :as comse other users but then against several people like Anderson Cooper and evne john King wh o have written fewer works than Mr :Cavbal. He is not som e pretty blogger; he is a hardworking and moderately well-respected writer in the world ladder and he desrves a :wikipedia article celarly according to the standards that have been promulgated within this dimension AND not any othe rstandard superimposed offer our prexisting principles. we Can't create new standards at will in order to exlcude some people like this it doesnt work like such this manner Smith Jones (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To me this seemed quite borderline and I simply intended to,as usual ignore the AfD. I them remembered This tool. By my crude calculations there are approx 7200 a lot of requests to find out more information about him each year. An online encyclopedia should not ignore its users. Lucian Sunday (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a strange argument... My userpage here on wikipedia has had more requests than that... So should i have an article as well? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect your article will get a lot less hits than your user page. (User; Article) Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting argument but you neglect the page views seen by Wikipedia editors. This page has been edited quite a bit in the past year and if you take the number 7200 (which you crossed out) as a starting guesstimate, that would equate to almost 20 pageviews a day. I'm guessing at least 5 a day would come from Wikipedia editors, and I alone have probably looked at this page a few dozen times since I started dealing with it. Also note that January 08 (as of this posting) has seen the most traffic of all the months (by far), with almost 500 pageviews between the days of 01/12 and 01/13. This is most certainly caused by the current discussion about the article. In comparison with his popularity on Wikipedia, hardly anybody in the real world is on the lookout for him. Themfromspace (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Amazon.com. The name appears in multiple published sources, which means it's a notable name. Some of these may be different people, but in that case we would still at least make a disambiguation page. Moreover, looking at the Amazon.com results, an Alan Cabal is actually covered on page 167 of The Encyclopedia of Fantastic Film: Ali Baba to Zombies, which means it's encyclopedic per our First pillar. So, we should have some kind of article on this particular name. Whether or not it is focused on one person or as a disambugation page is a discussion for the article's talk page. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while this article has considerably improved from earlier versions, it nonetheless does not, in its present form, pass WP:BIO. It has plenty of sources written by Cabal, but few written about him, which is what the notability guideline requires - and basically none in reliable sources. He may have attracted attention from 'internet forums and blogs', but I can't see any evidence that he has been the subject of articles in reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Sailor[edit]

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

Article appears to be written by the subject. She ran as Libertarian in the United States House of Representatives elections in 2000, 2002 and 2004, was nowhere near winning, but got some coverage in the local papers. The rest is just vanity. Apoc2400 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--wow, that is the most verbose vanity piece I've seen on WP. Nom. is right, I think; nothing but a little bit of local interest, and a whole lot of fluff. I mean, I'm glad Michaelangelo is one of the subject's influences rather than Jeff Koons, but is that encyclopedic? Drmies (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's scary is that this article used to be longer. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I started laughing when I got to the "Uninfluences" section. Soapboxing at its finest. Noir (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the absolute definition of "vain vanity in vain". JuJube (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nom. "Under the authority of the Honorable Judge James Sexsmith, Stephanie Sailor and Ian Adams were married on July 18, 1996, at the Courthouse in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They drove away from the wedding in their 1968 Cadillac hearse... Adams and Sailor filed for divorce in Chicago. The breakup was peaceful; they shared voluntary joint custody of their dogchild until 2006" Outstanding! Proxy User (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete All the news sources are passing mentions primarily mentioning her as someone opposing the mainstream candidates. Does not seem to meet WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet wp:bio or WP:POLITICIAN. Does have good taste in music though. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is a blatantly clear consensus that the article should not be deleted, there is not a clear consensus neither for keep nor for merge. — Aitias // discussion 17:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin Interviews with Katie Couric[edit]

Sarah Palin Interviews with Katie Couric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A single interview of a political candidate, not notable in and of itself. Material should be merged into John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 or Public image and reception of Sarah Palin. Kelly hi! 17:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- the Katie Couric interviews were the definitive news interviews from the 2008 US presidential election. In terms of journalism, these will be featured in case studies for generations and I believe will be studied as thoroughly as the Frost/Nixon interviews. No other interviews were nearly as influential as the Couric/Palin ones and Palin is still talking about it! --The lorax (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep exhaustive research on this page, well referenced. Sense that this is a WP:DONTLIKE argument. travb (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the interviews were bad enough to get news attention, they are not notable enough to have their own articles. Per the nom, there are several potential articles this info could be mentioned in (also, "Interviews" should not be capitalized). TJ Spyke 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clips from this interview were played for months on several major news channels during the campaign. They achieved their own notability and the article appears to do a good job describing it.
  • Weak keep. This is probably notable and referenced enough to be kept here, but the article itself needs massive copy-editing; as it stands it's quite confusing and uninformative. If it cannot be made encyclopedic, it should be deleted. Noir (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While I can understand the rationale for the merge argument, there are two things that persuade me that keeping is better -- 1) there is enough information available about this singularly famous incident for a coherent and focused article, enough in fact that it would be excessive as a subsection, and 2) it's easier to find as a separate article, rather than as a subsection. Plenty of people look for information on this incident. Antandrus (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Series of interviews that are simply part of Presidential campaign and are related with public image of Sarah Palin. The interviews and following media tete-a-tete might be a good material at Wikinews, but has no historical notability here. That the interviews might be studied and are equivalent to Frost/Nixon interviews is an irrelevant and unsubstantiated argument here. LeaveSleaves 19:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep My first impression was that this information can adequately be merged to the articles about the 2008 campaign, as well as those for Sarah Palin and Katie Couric. However, I tend to agree that this will be studied by both politicians and journalists in the future, and that this page provides a level of detail that would not be appropriate in the other articles.
  • Merge into the two existing articles, keeping all the citations. Let's not just suppress this.--Wetman (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have previously said to delete on all the breakout articles on Palin. In this particular one though, the series of interviews was itself notable as series of interviews, and has been commented on as such , extensively, even after the campaign. DGG (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -this should be merged. doesn't merit its own article. Ltwin (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge. I think this is more of a content-structuring issue than an AfD issue, but my view of how to best structure the content would be as a sub-section of a more general campaign article, analogously to how we handle, say, the famous 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debates. --Delirium (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I would think the best way would be to make a section in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Kelly hi! 23:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into campaign article. Single event. Little solid content. Not actually looked at much either. Collect (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge into either the presidential campaign or public image articles Sceptre (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Can be merged directly into either the Sarah Palin public image or McCain campaign articles. Hekerui (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The interviews should be mentioned in the two articles being proposed as merge targets, but there's enough to say about the topic to also merit a focused, independent article. At present, this article doesn't even say that much about the content of the interviews, so there's a lot of room for expansion. Zagalejo^^^ 04:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, just information to be considered : None of the citations from the page, as it stands now, are on the Sarah Palin page and they really shouldn't be on the John McCain page if they were. That includes:
1."New York Times television critic Alessandra Stanley described the interview as "disastrous" to the McCain/Palin campaign." -On SNL It's the Real Sarah Palin, Looking Like a Real Entertainer, by Alessandra Stanley, October 20, 2008, New York Times" 2. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGIwNTU1OWJkOTYyYTVkYmMyNGFkNjZhOTQwM2FkMDI= 3. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4490713n : Couric Interview. 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-95wkCMeUkk Interview with Palin, from 'Media Malpractice' 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfV8U16OkL0 Couric on Letterman show.
The CBS video in particular is priceless, as it is the actual interview in question.
The current standard of writing on that section of the Sarah Palin page is poor. "Among the news organizations that criticized the restrictions were Palin's first major interview, with Charles Gibson of ABC News, met with mixed reviews.[150] Her interview five days later with Fox News's Sean Hannity focused on many of the same questions from Gibson's interview.[151] However, Palin's performance in her third interview, with Katie Couric of CBS News, was widely criticized; her poll numbers declined, Republicans expressed concern that she was becoming a political liability, and some conservative commentators called for Palin to resign from the Presidential ticket.[152][153]"
Note that there are no actual cites for the Couric interview, and two reactions from the conservative commentators. I think I might actually prefer that this page gets deleted and the Sarah Palin page gets made better, but we must have at least one meaningful articulation of this story. Anarchangel (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Links to this page' on "Sarah Palin interviews with Katie Couric" shows the SP article linking to SPiwKC, but using ctrl-f to search for 'Sarah Palin interviews with Katie Couric' in the edit field shows nothing. I hypothesize this is because SPiwKC was once one of the SP collection of articles, and had that infobox on its page, which has somehow disappeared, possibly because of the name change move to lowercase 'interview'? Anarchangel (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge into existing articles. While Palins interviews as a whole are notable, I don't believe an individual article on each interview is appropriate. Dman727 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as a defining moment of the election. The fact that this relates to several other articles about the campaign strengthens the case for improving this article, and adding brief summary syle items in the related articles, each with a link to this as the main article. . dave souza, talk 12:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per Dave souza. Also, in a few years when Palin considers running again, we don't have to expend the effort to rewrite this article. At any rate, it was the turning point for conservative support for her--most of the intellectual and educated conservatives abandoned support for her after this interview. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The interviews were iconic. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 16:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The interview was certainly notable at the time, so I think the question is whether we're enough away from the event yet to determine whether it's "historically notable" or "a historical footnote". Aesthetically the article seems pretty shabby (to my eyes), but that's neither here nor there. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. "certainly notable at the time"? wtf? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, just sayin... ya know? :-) --SB_Johnny | talk 00:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Once notable always notable. We are talking about a series of interviews which arguably changed the result of the United States Presidential election. We have a massive amount of material on these interviews which is reliably sourced. That material does cannot reasonably go in the main Palin article or other Palin related articles. So it goes here. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A merger of all this information into one of the suggested articles (McCain campaign or Palin image) would be clutter, giving too much detail about this one event. A merger of less than all the information would expunge from Wikipedia material about a significant aspect of both those topics. I agree with the comment by Delirium that this is more an issue of how to structure our campaign coverage. Nevertheless, despite Delirium's example of the 1960 debate being only a section in that campaign article, we have a separate article about the United States presidential election debates, 2004. We tend to have more information about recent (internet-era) events than older ones. The general principles of article organization are the same -- give a summary of reasonable length, and if there's more detail then set it forth in daughter articles. The article now up for AfD is, in effect, a lengthy content footnote to the other articles. JamesMLane t c 20:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I won't go as far as JoshuaZ in that these interviews changed the result of the election (the financial crisis took care of that), but it was definitely a pivotal moment in the public's perception of Sarah Palin. This interview is probably the most debated of all interviews which took place during the campaign. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I did say "arguably" not that I necessarily agreed with the argument just that it has some reasonable plausibility. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Expand scope. There's no valid reason to have such a narrowly focussed article. Palin did other interviews, such as the very closely watched interview with Charlie Gibson, during the 2008 campaign. It seems like focussing exclusively on the Couric interviews isn't neutral, since they were widely viewed as a huge flop for Palin, either due to her shortcomings or due to the interview tactics of Couric. Meanwhile, other interviews with Palin were viewed as much more helpful to Palin. We could have separate Wikipedia articles on the Couric interview, the Gibson interview, the SNL appearance, the convention speech, the visit to the bathroom in Oshkosh, the clothing purchases, the jogging in Missoula, the wink during the debate, et cetera. But let's not.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Ferrylodge, if the article were merged into the McCain campaign article, would you merge all the information, or expunge some of it from Wikipedia? JamesMLane t c 05:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sometimes a focal point article like this can illustrate American political reality better than a large, sprawling treatment like John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 can. These interviews were also the likely high water mark of Couric's career at CBS, and are thus significant with respect to her as well as to Palin. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'll agree about something someday.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Public image and reception of Sarah Palin article because of the rather limited scope of this article alone. Palin also did interviews with ABC's Charles Gibson and Fox's Sean Hannity, and I think both got some press reception, so Palin's interviews with each anchor should be covered in that article. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Deruyter[edit]

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

Was an expired WP:PROD, restored per request. — Aitias // discussion 17:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article may not meet Wikipedia's quality standards (that's why the banner is there), but IMHO Yves Deruyter deserves his own article. He is one of Belgium's most famous Techno DJs. He's got an extensive discography. He meets at least two relevance criteria (probably more):
- charted several times on national music charts: Born Slippy (fi: 7, de: 97), The Rebel (be: 40, nl: 67, fr: 71), Calling Earth (ch: 23), Back To Earth (de: 54, uk: 56), Outsiders (de: 45), In My Electric House (be: 34) (1, 2)
- two or more albums on major label or important indie label: D-Album (ID&T), 2001 (Bonzai Records) --Fichtelzwerg (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soggy biscuit[edit]

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

Relisting for deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_3#Soggy_biscuit_.28closed.29. Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 16:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One RS so far: Chambers Slang Dictionary (by Jonathon Green, Chambers Harrap Publishers, ISBN 9780550104397), previously Cassell Dictionary of Slang (Cassell Reference, 1998; last edition 2006, ISBN 9780304366361). Sufficient RS for a very simple concept and male masturbation game. Also exists as a extended (simulated) masturbation scene in the German movie Crazy (2000) as well as Stephen Fry's The Liar, and Skinless's song "Scum Cookie". The term is notable although the article could use some work. Should not be deleted per WP:BEFORE. — Becksguy (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clean-up and expand. This is a well-known circle jerk initiation used in ritual initiations and hazing. There is, of course, erotic aspects but we can build slowly to get there. Here's one, [28], [29], Cassell's Dictionary of Slang should help. Soggy biscuit is called Runka Bulle, or Runkbullen in Swedish and in Australia it's "Soggy Sao", because it's done on a Sao biscuit.[30][31] -- Banjeboi 19:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term and concept are clearly notable (irrespective of whether the game truly exists or is mainly an urban myth) per the existing sources and Benjiboi's links. This is an article deserving expansion, not deletion. DWaterson (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - [32] suggests that the novel Goats by Mark Poirier also contains a depiction of the game on page 106. DWaterson (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, the fact that a novel has a depiction of the game (on whatever page) has no bearing on real-world notability of the topic. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also called Last Off, Limp Biscuit, ooky cookie, The Biscuit Game, Scum Cookie, soggy cracker, and Soggy Sao. The RS, especially as supplied by Benji, more than satisfy WP:V and WP:N. — Becksguy (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and is more a WP:DICT dictionary definition than a bona fide encyclopedic topic at the moment. The references provided are either brief mentions or actual usages of the phrase in fiction, rather than in-depth and specific discussions of the concept itself. Therefore this entry belongs on Wiktionary rather than on Wikipedia. There is also a kind of an unresolved WP:V issue since it is not clear from the few refs available if the game is an actual game that is/was widely played or an example of an urban legend (my feeling from doing googling is that it is probably the latter). E.g. here[33] the game is described as "probably mythical". Unless and untill reliable sources are clear on what this actually is, it is not really appropriate to have an encyclopedia article on the topic (it would necessarily be WP:ORish and speculative). Nsk92 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the four years of this article's existence, no notable information about the game has been found other than a definition in a dictionary of slang and a handful of references to this activity in fiction. I do not believe there is a body of recorded human knowledge about the Soggy Biscuit Game, and doubt the article could be expanded any further than what is essentially a dictionary definition. Therefore, as per Nsk92, I feel it is more appropriate for Wiktionary. — Matt Crypto 20:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn dicdef at present; only other content ever on this "article" was OR. Wasn't this merged into a sexual terms article? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can not find any reliable sources not already linked above and to my mind they consist only of trivial mentions and dictionary definitions, not enough to be the basis of an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is indeed a game which is played in some British public schools, but there are no reliable independent sources for the content. Well known it might be, but we are not allowed to write about what we know only about what is documented in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We include semi-mythical games and legends and games that appear in fiction if there are sources. A handful is sufficient. The article it was merged into was deleted because the other part of the article was not able to be justified, and re-creating this was the most direct way to deal with the situation. DGG (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki if Wiktionary will have it. Though it is a legitimate concept insufficient reliable sources have been produced to show that this can ever be more than a permastub. TerriersFan (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Clearly notable. travb (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a look at the article and I can see reliable sources. It may be short, and it may be slang, but neither are reasons for deletion. -- roleplayer 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki if Wiktionary will have it; if not, delete. Sceptre (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comedy interlude: possibly not a reliable source, but whilst searching for some I found this which is worth a laugh: [34] DWaterson (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Might be short, but as shown by Becksguy at the very beginning of the discussion, there is potential for expansion beyond dic def status because of its use in popular culture. - Mgm|(talk) 00:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At best then, the article will just be a dictionary definition plus a "List of references in popular culture" section.
      • That's pretty much assuming bad faith. Many slang articles like nigger, dyke, fruit and twink move well beyond stubs witha bit of TLC. -- Banjeboi 21:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • With all due respect, comparing this article to "nigger" [apologies for spelling it out] isn't helping any. Surely you can't compare a term like "nigger" (which has a very long and important social, cultural, legal, political etc. history) with the subject of this article. However, to justify inclusion all one needs to find is reliable sources that discuss this subject in detail. I haven't seen any, so far. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. At the moment I don't see any sources that would justify this as an encyclopedic article (rather than a mere definition). In other words I don't see any evidence that the concept (and practice) is real and deserves an encyclopedic treatment. The only reference is to a Dictionary of Slang, which only proves that the term exists, nothing more. Further, the second paragraph states 'the notability is such ... that variations are referred to in popular culture, examples including Stephen Fry's The Liar, the German movie Crazy and Skinless's song "Scum Cookie"' (emphasis mine). Yes, popular culture. That's all. Are there any serious real-world references, or, to spell it out, is there any discussion in multiple, reliable, independent, published sources which discuss this activity (and not just the term)? If so, then please provide such references. If not, then this clearly fails WP:RS, and should be deleted. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not aware of any policy that requires an article's concept to be "real". Truthiness isn't "real", but is a featured article. The Cassell's reference is certainly enough to fulful verfiability requirements for the notion, irrespective of whether it actually occurrs. And Stephen Fry is a extremely well-respected author - works of literature aren't good enough sources any more? DWaterson (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fiction does not make for particularly compelling reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability advises, "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. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." I think this topic fails the significant coverage criterion — Matt Crypto 10:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral and still pondering this for now. This article was stable from August 2007 to December 2008 despite several hundred edits. Earlier versions had much more material but much was trimmed away by editors. This caretaking suggests keep. On the other hand, most of the sources I can find are from not-so-reliable sources, and even some of the blog-type sources (example) have a large number of participants saying "what's that" or "I've never heard of that," indicating non-notability or, as an early version of the article suggested, limited geographical notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 03:09, 11 January 2009
  • Comment Transwiki to Wiktionary is an acceptable solution. Note that wiktionary:Transwiki:Soggy biscuit has existed since March 2007. Based on the page logs it looks like it's an incoming transwiki from Wikipedia. However, it has not yet been moved to Wiktionary, despite being patrolled 2 weeks ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 January 2009
  • Change to Keep per recent information including the edit to this AFD by Becksguy(talk) at 03:58, 13 anuary 2009 (UTC) below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DICT and previous nominations. If this doesn't get deleted this time around I will GLADLY re-list it in a few weeks in order to gain consensus. JBsupreme (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that deletion policy specifically warns "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome". the wub "?!" 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go quote your policy to someone where it actually applies dude. Its perfectly fine to wait a reasonable amount of time to renominate something in an attempt to obtain consensus. That's how Wikipedia works in case you didn't know. JBsupreme (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least I quoted some policy, unlike you just warning that you'll act disruptively if you don't get your way. I just noticed you didn't refer to any policy/guideline in your deletion reason either. "Per nominator" is an argument to be careful with at the best of times, but especially in this case where the nomination was purely procedural. The nominator didn't express any desire for deletion. Or did you not actually read what you were endorsing? I wonder how much else of the discussion you have read... the wub "?!" 18:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, it did come across a little bit like you're saying you would keep relisting it at short intervals until you got the outcome you wanted, which is not a hugely efficient way for Wikipedia to work. I'm not saying it'd be bad to relist it at some point in the future, with the experience that the article hadn't grown beyond a stub despite the passage of time. Yet, we've had this debate for years already, and nobody's turned up more than a dictionary definition and a handful of mentions in popular culture, but still people see potential for expansion. — Matt Crypto 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. It is articles like this that give Wikipedia a bum rap. JBsupreme (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added the reference to The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English that Benjiboy found above. With the two dictionary references, the possibility of more to come, and the coverage in popular culture, I think this is a notable concept. The user comments at the IMDB entry for Crazy confirm that the game as described appears in it, though we could use a more reliable source for an actual citation. Stephen Fry discusses it at length, but unfortunately my copy of The Liar is at home. Note that although fictional, many parts of the novel are based on Fry's own experiences. I seem to remember it being mentioned in his actual autbiography Moab Is My Washpot also, but may be getting confused here. I'll try and get to the library next week. If someone can confirm the band Limp Bizkit being named after this also (as implied here), that would be another plus. the wub "?!" 18:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Talk:Soggy biscuit#One reference source: is probably of interest, a book titled Guyland, the Perilous World Where Boys Become Men which refers to it, enough to merit a mention in a New York Times review. I'll try and track that down also, but have some real work to do now. I don't think "I was researching people wanking over biscuits" is going to make a good excuse for why I haven't done my supervision work :) the wub "?!" 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That you can find it in multiple slang dictionaries is perhaps reason for it to be in another slang dictionary, not an encyclopedia.  Xihr  00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have the NYT reference to Guyland and to the book also (and a few others) and will be adding them here and to the article. I also have a YouTube ref to a clip from Crazy (2000) that contains the soggy biscuit scene here, 1:52 in duration. — Becksguy (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. WillOakland (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At best, this belongs in a (slang) dictionary, not an encyclopedia.  Xihr  00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've Got To Be Kidding Me. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references in the article or below seem to point to anything other than it being a dictionary definition. As such, it would be more suitable for Wiktionary. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 17:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found another book:
Camp All-American, Hanoi Jane, and the High-and-tight: Gender, Folklore, and Changing Military Culture page 66[35] by Carol Burke; Published by Beacon Press, 2004; ISBN 0807046604, 9780807046609. This book delves into the motivations of this, and other, modern male initiations. -- Banjeboi 22:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From the references, including the one from Burke just provided by Benji, and Kimmel's Guyland, it should be clear to all that the term is way more than a dictionary definition. It describes a ritual male initiation in the military, fraternities, and male societies, (including at Yale as described in the reference about George Bush by Geoghegan), and describes it's motivations, purposes, and places it in cultural context. Something that dicdefs do not do. This may be a teenage or young adult masturbation game to some, but it's now been shown to be part of the cult of masculinity, as described by multiple reliable sources. — Becksguy (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


References[edit]

I'm providing a compiled list of references to Soggy Biscuit, Ookie Cookie, and other synonyms, all in one place, since much of this debate is about references. To be expanded. Please continue debate above this. — Becksguy (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Green, Jonathon (1998). The Cassell Dictionary of Slang (1st Ed). Cassell. p. 1110. Definition: Soggy Biscuit, n. 1960's, origin. Aus.: 'A masturbation game, popular among schoolboys, whereby the participants masturbate and then ejeculate upon a biscuit; the last to reach orgasm must eat the semen-covered bicuit'
  2. Partridge, Eric (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. p. 2189. ISBN 9780415259385. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Quote: The term "soggy biscuit" is thought to have originated in Australia sometime in the 1960s
  3. Yang, Wesley (2008). "Nasty Boys - Review of 'Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men,' by Michael Kimmel". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-01-11. Published: September 7, 2008 Quote: "He describes here the fraternity hazing practice known as the “Ookie Cookie"
  4. Kimmel, Michael (2008). Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. Harper. ISBN 978-0060831349.
  5. Green, Joshua (1998). "Seven Deadly Sins: Bear, babes, and beatings". Salon.com. Published: October 28, 1998 Quote: "As at most schools, there was a rumor that trumped all others -- of a pledging endgame called "Ookie Cookie" in which fraternity hopefuls masturbated onto a cookie. The last one to finish faced a grueling ultimatum: eat the cookie or face instant excommunication."
  6. Devenish, Colin (2000). Limp Bizkit. Macmillan. p. 26. ISBN 978-0312263492. Quote: Stateside, the Limp Bizkit name just looks misspelled with a possible impaired phallic reference but overseas Limp Bizkit takes on a completely new, and sometimes obscene connotation. "We've heard that in Australia there is a game called soggy biscuit, but they call it limp biscuit, too. It's played by teenage boys, and they have a circle jerk on a biscuit or piece of bread, and whoever comes last has to eat the bread"
  7. Ferguson, Drew (2008). Screwed Up Life of Charlie the Second. Kensington Publishing. ISBN 978-0758227089. Quote: So that leaves the library stacks and daydreaming about the hockey team's "soggy biscuit" initiation where all the guys jack off onto a slice of Wonder Bread and the last guy to shoot eats it
  8. Geoghegan, G. P (2007). Bush - the Dark Night of America. Lulu.com. ISBN 978-1430324409. Retrieved 2009-01-11. Quote: Later as an upperclassman, I graduated to the role of master, righteously ushering new pledges through untold character-building sexual humiliations and countless camaraderie-building soggy biscuit tournaments.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It seems there may be a consensus for a merge as well; I'd recommend discussion on the article talk pages about how best to accomplish this, or someone could just be bold and do it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Armitage[edit]

Willy Armitage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Rollin Hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barney Collier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cinnamon Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These characters meet neither the general notability guideline nor the suggested notability for elements in fiction guideline. Furthermore, the articles themselves consist entirely of plot summary, are wholly unreferenced, and in general fail to offer the kind of real-world perspective required of articles written about elements of fiction. Had redirected to Mission: Impossible for possible merge, or at least to retain edit history, but other editors would rather revert without entering into talk-page discussion; most recent one suggested AfD, so here we are. The plot summary, if whittled down from these articles, is essentially duplicative of content in the fourth paragraph of Mission:_Impossible#IMF_leaders (perhaps that would have been a more apt/specific redirect target). --EEMIV (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Merge/Redirect Someone reverting a redirect without going into discussion is a bad reason to start a deletion discussion. You either try again or start the discussion yourself. Having a redirect point to existing coverage is infinitely better than having a redlink. Instead try to educate said user and explain to them how crucial making a comment along with the action is. In extreme cases, redirects can also be protected to avoid reversion of redirects without discussion. So there's plenty of options to try before deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 00:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but at worst I think this ends as a redirect/merge -- and this, unlike open-ended talk-page discussions, has a deadline for establishing consensus. --EEMIV (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the articles are certainly notable and falls into the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mission:_Impossible_characters. The fact that it lacks citations is cause for cleanup not deletion or redirect. With respect to not entering into talk-page discussions, the editors were not given a chance to since EEMIV took it upon themselves to force the redirect of multiple articles (reverting those edits of another single user) BEFORE reaching consensus of any kind. Jdrewitt (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when does falling into a category convey notability? Note that Rollin Hand has been tagged for sources since the end of 2007. Considering Hand is the most significant character (within the series), maybe second only to Jim Phelps, and no such sources have arrived, it's doubtful sources abound for minor characters like Armitage, Collier, and Carter. --EEMIV (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note the articles are no longer wholly unreferenced. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that references to IMDb verify name of actor, the role and the TV series; nothing added to body of articles. Insufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More references have been added. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barney is on this list. The link on the article might be redlinked because of the Twinkle tool's weirdness...or my own typo. I'll double-check it. Fixed the link on his article page. Thanks for the heads up. --EEMIV (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - none meet the notability standard and refs are not RS. ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All They all belong on a page (or portion of a page) that lists/describes characters, not on individual pages. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if you think this, you are supporting a redirect, which is a keep. DGG (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi...I am the guy who updated the Rollin Hand entry, and created the Cinnamon Carter, Barney Collier and Willy Armitage articles. Hopefully, it is OK for me to chime in here to plead my case. (My apologies if this is inappropriate.) I put the articles out there because I felt that the precedent was set by other major fictional TV characters having entries. All of the ones I entered/updated are regular (not one-time) characters on the show, two of them for three seasons, and two of them for seven seasons. The show itself is a staple of pop culture, and the recurring characters themselves are staples of fictional spies of that era (the master of disguise, the femme fatale, the electronics expert, and the muscle man). As for there being no citations, all of my information is observations from actually watching the show (I've been watching it regularly on DVD during morning workouts.) I feel very strongly that there is a strong precedent for entries such as these. If these don't rate being on Wikipedia, then neither does the entry for Terri Bauer from 24 (one season) and Nina Myers from 24 (three seasons). In spite of the fact that the show is 40 years old, I think more people would recognize the characters from the Mission: Impossible than would recognize Terri Bauer. Thanks for your time and consideration. BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and then merge. There probably is not enough to really have individual articles, but a combination article for minor characters seems appropriate. I see no conceivable reason for editing them--in a combination article they do not have to be notable individually, the work itself is a sufficient source for descriptive information to meet WP:V, and the plot content does not seem excessive. the nominator has brought this here to enforce what he calls a merge--possibly he would have done better to pursue dispute resolution as is appropriate for content. Almost certainly he would have done better had he actually merged instead of merely redirected. I sometimes think I'm the only person here who sees the use of combination articles for minor characters as a way of ending these afds altogether. The question is the content, not how it's divided up. DGG (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually oppose a merge, more or less: when you get rid of the plot minutiae, what's left is already covered at the Mission: Impossible article. These entries serve only as handy redirect anchors; the topics are already sufficiently covered. --EEMIV (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep then merge as what exists in these articles could be the basis for much better individual articles but as they stand would be best contained either in the main series article or a List of Mission: Impossible characters article. There are 40 years of sources to show real-world notability for these characters but the current stubs lack that perspective. - Dravecky (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into as new List of Mission: Impossible characters seems like the obvious solution. The articles currently neither establish notability or real-world focus, but a show of such notability should certainly have a character list anyway. – sgeureka t•c 18:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak. (G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Dreams (Doctor Who episode)[edit]

Shattered Dreams (Doctor Who episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely fictional episode. No relevant results on Google. If you read the article thoroughly, it's clearly tongue-in-cheek. Specific issues: Cast area on the right, under the picture, show David Tennant and companions Rose (Billie Piper, no longer on the show) and "Agatha" (no such character). Guest stars listed include Simon Cowell, Gordon Ramsay (as himself!) and "The Office" creator Ricky Gervais - there has no word on any such guest stars. Says it is a 5th Season episode to air in July 2009 (in 6 months, when the 5th season will actually be in 2010 and will star Matt Smith at the 11th Doctor). And, most amusingly of all, it says the previous episode is the Broadway song "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" (from Evita) and the next episode is the Sega Master System videogame "Olympic Gold".

edit: Also of note is that User:Fucquit, a sockpuppet of User:Fuquit, created the page. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily delete as hoax/vandalism created by offensively-named username that is a sockpuppet of a banned user. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some people have far too much time on their hands. I am sure there are plenty of places where Doctor Who fan fiction is welcome but Wikipedia is not one of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoaxalicous. Edward321 (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (G5) created by sockpuppet of banned user. --.:Alex:. 15:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — neuro(talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical deviations in Gladiator (2000 film)[edit]

Historical deviations in Gladiator (2000 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All films have errors, there is nothing to indicate Gladiator is unique in this. Article is an indiscriminate, uncategorized unreferenced list. I recommend deleting this because nothing Scott has never said he intended to make a documentary. Alientraveller (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Looks like a referenced, detailed article. Yes, all films have errata, but the sources bear out some sort of significance. The errata need not be unique. And whatever Scott said or did not say, the lead can be rewritten to be less jarring. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and this helps make coverage of the film more complete. Dlohcierekim 14:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-referenced and surprisingly encyclopedic. See Biological_issues_in_Jurassic_Park for other precedents. Shrumster (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Also a nice accompaniment to the main article. It might be a good idea to turn from a list into a more prosaic article however. --.:Alex:. 15:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic appears to have enough suitable references to merit an article. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only content backed by reliable sources that comment on the film through a historical lens to Gladiator (2000 film). Hard to believe that those who are voting "keep" do not see that the article is mostly synthesis because most of the sources in the article are not even related to the film. It's basically akin to picking up a history textbook and investigating the fallacies of a creative work on your own, so the claim that the article is "well-referenced" is flawed. For such a high-profile film like this, there will be commentary by historians on the film itself, as evidenced by the smaller number of sources in the current article. There are also similar sources at the film article's historical section... when proper clean-up is done to purge synthesis, all useful information can be kept in that particular historical section. There is also the concern that this article is a WP:POVFORK since it focuses on how this film (remember, it is a creative work) does not match up to actual history and does not say what, if anything, Ridley Scott got right about depicting the time period. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Did Scott really plug the film as accurate then? Ryan4314 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Right well I've had a read through the article as well as the comments here. I think the "smaller number of sources" that feature "commentary by historians" makes it sufficient for inclusion. But I do agree about the POVFORK. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not merge it to Gladiator (2000 film)#Historical, then? The film article is only 49 KB so this one does not qualify as a true spin-off. The film article's "Historical" section needs to be purged of synthesis, too, and when all reliable sources so far are combined, they can fit in that particular section. Under "Historical", it can both be identified what was accurate and what was not, avoiding the POV fork nature of this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea, but I'd rather have a merge done after AFD on the talk page or something. Merges forced by AFD can be a bit slap-dash if you know what I mean ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep referenced, detailed article. travb (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the article appears to be chock full of unreferenced information which is likely original research by synthesis. Instances of deviations should only be included when a reliable source has explicitly mentioned them, not from: X happened in film, Y happened in textbook equals Z historical deviation. Some of the references currently being used look a bit shaky (this seems to be user submitted) and I imagine when everything which is unreferenced and unreferencable is removed the remaining content would easily fit into the appropriate section of the main Gladiator (2000 film) article - making the information easier to find for interested readers. Guest9999 (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this nice addition to Wikipedia. Tag for inline citations per WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A large number of movie reviews comment on the historical accuracy and deviations, it is a popular topic of movie discussion boards. This review is typical of those who accept it as accurate and sums it up nicely with the phrase "Not True, But It Is Authentic", ie:a fictional story but historically accurate. If I recall correctly there have been more than 20 university papers submitted on the historical deviations. The most relevant mentions are that the historical accuracy of the movie have been critisized in print by the historians Scott hired as advisors. Also, all but three entries are mentioned by a RS in relation to the film itself and can be properly referenced if needed. Even though those three may be synth they are relevant due to Scotts claims of accuracy. David Franzoni who wrote all of the movies original drafts relied on ancient sources for historical accuracy but Scott believed it to be TOO accurate so employed John Logan for a rewrite to make it more sympathetic to the audiences view of history. William Nicholson then rewrote Logan to bring it closer to Franzoni's version as it was no longer historically accurate enough, then Franzoni was brought back to do the final draft because Nicholson was still not accurate enough. The movie was never presented as a normal hollywood drama, Ridley Scott is known for accuracy and promoted the movie as an epic historical drama and Scott even discusses the historical accuracy of the movie in the DVD extras and specifically mentions the accuracy of the fights which are, in reality, not close to accurate. The article itself I feel compliments the movie page and is informative as an encyclopedic entry for readers who want to know how accurate the movie they were told is, was. Wayne (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With the outcome likely to be keep, I suggest purging all synthesis from this article and pursuing a request to merge all reliable sources pertinent to the film to Gladiator (2000 film)#Historical. (The film article's section will also need purging of synthesis as well.) This is very much a topic of the film, and with the film article being under 50 KB in size, having this spin-off is completely unwarranted. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the purging of synthesis from this article and the film article's "Historical" section (the latter receiving a greater purge), it is even clearer that there is room for any reliably sourced content about the film's historical accuracy to be merged to the main article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job on the "purge", at first I was worried you'd just removed all the unsourced content, but I can see from reading the edit that you haven't. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it was material that wouldn't belong in the first place anyway. There is still uncited content about Ridley doing this or that or a historian saying this or that, but searching for the keywords should (hopefully) pull up the reliable sources to back the information. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — neuro(talk) 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teknikmagasinet AB[edit]

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

Lacks reliable sources. — Aitias // discussion 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article is currently very badly writen, I'd even say it reads like a bad advertisement, but it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.
It certainly needs to be cleaned up.Pattont/c 13:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOW (unanimous agreement among all commenters and established editors except nominator). Mgm|(talk) 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Hotel, Halton[edit]

Castle Hotel, Halton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a very nice building, but it is "just another grade 2 listed building", and as such not exceptional. I own one that is also unexceptional. It's obviously verifiable. One can go and see it!, but I cannot spot notability as a building. That leads me to believe that this is an advert for the pub. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not an advert for a pub, but an article to satisfy the requirements for Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire becoming a featured list; the assessors expect all the buildings, at least those down to Grade II*, to have at least a stub. And it has a history, as a previous courthouse and prison, which, in addition to its Grade II* listing, makes it notable. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think the FA assessors' expectations should dictate whether this should have its own article or not. I think we have to go by notability and assertions of notability. Surely not all of the Grade 2 listed buildings in England merit an article unless they are inherently notable for some major reason other than the whims of the conservation officers? That is one of the reasons I have put this article up for consensus to be established. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather than being selected on a whim, all listed buildings are protected for one of the following reasons:
  • If it has particular architectural interest: buildings which are nationally important for the interest of their architectural design, decoration and craftsmanship; also important examples of particular building types and techniques.
  • Historic reasons: this includes buildings which illustrate important aspects of the nation's social, economic, cultural or military history.
  • Close historical association with nationally important buildings or events.
Plus, there is a difference between grades II and II*, with Grade II* being more important. Nev1 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though I can see only one news article (2007 related to a health issue and closure by the council) it appears to have attracted some interest in various books as seen via google. Unfortunately the text is not often available but enough seem to not be simpy directories. I suspect that there is sufficient material in reliable sources to write a quality article - Peripitus (Talk) 13:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a Grade 2 building but a Grade II* - that is a higher grade than Grade II. Grade II* includes "particularly significant buildings of more than local interest"; does that definition not confirm notability? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a historic building that is part of a major archaeological site (Halton Castle). As a grade II* building it has been officially recognised as a structure of national importance. English Heritage think the building is sufficiently notable to merit its own page, and I think it passes the bar for inclusion in our encyclopaedia.Soph (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Soph's argument. To consider this article an advert for the pub is ridiculous. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, source and expand per above (All the Good arguments are going fast.) Had no idea ere now what a "Grade II*" building was, but Listed_building#England_and_Wales says, "particularly significant buildings of more than local interest." So this sounds like what would be a National Register of Historic Places building in the US. As such, that would make it notable. I'm 5,000+ miles away, having a rough time on sourcing. Dlohcierekim 15:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This building does seem to have a significant history. I suspect there are more historic buildings in the UK than in the US, and more in Runcorn than sleepy, li'l ole Largo. Dlohcierekim 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's just clarify here: the historic buildings system of England & Wales, administered by English Heritage, currently has three gradings, grade I > grade II* > grade II. A Grade II* listing (as this building has) represents "particularly significant buildings of more than local interest". There are only 18,000 grade II* listings in England & Wales (and many of these are actually in the grounds of grade-I-listed buildings). I don't see any reason why we should not have a separate article on all of these, especially those that aren't located within the grounds of grade-I-listed buildings. (Whether or not grade II listing is sufficient notability for our purposes is, I believe, arguable, but that is not the case in this instance.) In the case of the building now known as Castle Hotel, Halton, there is additionally a long history as a courthouse, which is discussed in the history of Halton by Starkey, as referenced in the article. To characterise the article as "an advert for the pub" is simply inaccurate. I have found with similar articles I've created that it's important to watch the article to make sure that inappropriate advertising material doesn't get added, but that's no reason to pre-emptively delete the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Grade II* is for "particularly important buildings of more than special interest" according to English Heritage, confirming the building's notability. Nev1 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it's not so simple: if the building is part of the larger Castle Halton, then, probably, it should be merged to an already existing section in Halton Castle ? NVO (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep a listed building on a national list is a basic definition of something being notable. We may have more or less to day, or we may have more or less concern with promotional material, butt here should always be an article for every one of them. when there's an authoritative public definition of notability for a subject, we should use it. or perhaps we assorted amateurs know better than the relevant professionals?DGG (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. Dlohcierekim 23:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Grade II* building. significant. Should be kept. travb (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, source and expand, giving more detail of its use as a court house - for what court, for example. The sources needed will be those used for the Halton Castle article. The alternative might be to merge with that article, but that is probably inappropriate since it "replaced" the castle gatehouse, rather than being a rebuild of it. I do not know the area, and so cannot deal with this myself. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I agree with the arguments above about this article being about a notable building worthy of its own article. I am a bit surprised that the article had only been created 5 minutes before this AfD was slapped onto it, although I know this can be done, I would have thought it advisable only when the created page was clearly not going to "make the grade" (as I have done myself in the past.) However, in this case, A Grade II* listed building would obviously not fall into that category. To think it is merely an advertising pitch given the creator's established editing history and successes in DYK, GAs and an FA, I think it was a poor show to place the AfD so quickly, and perhaps even a failure in WP:AGF. I think it should be swiftly closed as Keep.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political discussion society[edit]

Political discussion society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable; a student activity group with no claim of reports of activity in third party independent media. Kevin McE (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN student organization. Trying to hang notability on fame of guests, perhaps. Single external link does not work correctly. Jlg4104 (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Delete the subject has not recieved any coverage at all in reliable, independent secondary sources, so it fails Our notability criteria for organisations.
  • Google web search brings up a bebo social networking page and a wordpress blog. Nothing else that came up in the search is related to this group.
  • Google news search brings up nothing at all related to this group.
Pattont/c 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G4. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarey Savy. The article in that instance was actually better than this one. Also, if one reads carefully, this does not assert significance. Dlohcierekim 15:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarey Savy[edit]

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

I'm in two minds over this. A 12 year old kid is unlikely to have much notability and all I can find so far is Myspace and similar. His own website is not under his own domain name, so I am suggesting that the article fails notability. I'm ignoring the hugely POV writing style. That can be altered if the article should remain. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Ali Khan[edit]

Hasan Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The events it describes appear to be news items regarding various criminal cases in progress against a particular person. There is also a possible violation of WP:BLP Albert584 (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As nom states, this reads as if it is a newspaper account of an ongoing investigation WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Further, quite a few parts are based on allegations rather than documented facts. Interesting, but not encyclopedic. Tim Ross (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Albert584, we deem suitability for an encyclopaedia based on notability, not how poorly written it is. BLP concerns too are not a cause for deletion unless there is compelling libellous information present. The subject is. Ample sources from reliable media available to establish notability. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in agreement with Nicalp. Multiple sources surpass WP:GNG. Its a mater of cleanup, not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the person who nominated the article for deletion, I wish to point out that I have nominated the article for deletion, not because of the quality of writing but rather because of the fact that the article is essentially a collection of news items, does not appear to contain certain important details that you would expect to find in a biography (e.g. when and where was the person born) and fails to explain why the person is notable enough to be worthy of mention in an encyclopedia.
Also, note that there is a difference between presumption of notability (as established by a large number of reliable sources) and actual notability (which requires more than simply saying "there are plenty of reliable sources"). I believe that while the person described in the article has made headlines for his alleged criminal activities, this does not make the person a notable figure in history. Therefore, the statement "Multiple sources surpass WP:GNG" may not hold in this case. We will have to wait longer to see if that happens.
As for cleaning up the article, that suggestion would normally be better than outright deletion; unfortunately, there is barely anything worth salvaging now and the notability of the person in history is a problem as well. Albert584 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy - no point letting this linger any longer. GbT/c 07:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Baillie[edit]

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

Delete Vanity page, fails WP:MUSIC. Is the subject of one regional newspaper article about a radio station competition for young writers in which he was one of dozens of winners. Fails general notability. sassf (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page history - Has only been edited by the subject of the article. Was then tagged with CSD but the creator tagged with hangon, then another registered user (who only has two edits, both to the Callum Baillie page) removed the Speedy tag.sassf (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - please see the history of this afd page - improper deletion of the page attempted. sassf (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable musician. - Gimboid13 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The paragraphs with links to this article, added by this article's creator, in Armidale, New South Wales and Armidale High School should also be deleted. - Gimboid13 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sounds fair enough, if that's what the user actually wants. He hasn't put a case here at all for some reason. The article and photo are certainly better suited to a user page. One little caveat is that the user would need to realise he can't put links to the page in mainspace articles (such as the Armidale one). sassf (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everybody agrees: Callum Baillie doesn't belong on main space, but why don't we simply move it to his userspace without creating all of this negative emotion and drama?
Is it any wonder that the media on wikipedia deletions have been universally negative? I don't know of a single media article which praises our deletion process. Nicholson Baker of the New York Review of Books wrote of the Wikipedia deletion editors: "Your words are polite, yeah, but your actions are obscene." travb (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, calm down there, bud. You're not making this place any friendlier by attacking fellow editors. Themfromspace (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone here is welcome to remove the above section, if they wish.travb (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diwa de Leon[edit]

Diwa de Leon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:Notability. User234 (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benito T. de Leon[edit]

Benito T. de Leon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. User234 (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are various verifiable references of the subject of the article as already cited. In addition these include the following:

Targuzone (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is WP:Notability, not WP:Verifiability. And blogs as refs are frowned upon in Wikipedia. - User234 (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. I'm mulling it over. JBsupreme (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original editor's note: I had submitted an autobiography as an article in response to several requests for my resume from various sectors of society in the Philippines. While done in good faith, my lack of familiarity of the rules caused the nomination of the article for deletion on issues of WP:Notability and WP:COI. Noting that the article is about myself, I would defer to the consensual judgement of the Wiki community. Thanks very much for reviewing the material. Only the best.-Sultan-Commander (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix. I found yet a media reference [37]. This does not prove notability, but it certainly weakens the claim, that he should be a non-notable person on the Philipines. This is an autobiograhy, self-disclosed, probably arising out of lack of familiarity with Wiki, I would assume good faith. But obviously conflict of interest (COI). I would also say it is far too long. So, let the Wiki process fix it. The article is already adequately tagged, that it is in need of improvement. Keep and fix. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Author's original COI no longer important as the article now belongs to Wiki. Notability has been asserted and sourced. Philipino notability is notability. The article meets the criteria. Any concerns about COI and POV can be addressed through WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Schmidt, Notability has been established and the article meets the requirements of WP:BIO. I would remove any unsourced statements in the Thoughts and views section to ensure that the article has no original research or point of view issues. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Lynes[edit]

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

The alert that this particular author seems to lack notability has been up since July. I tend to concur with the sentiment, but would like some community input. There seems to be an active community of internet denizens hoping to maintain the guru status of this and Royal Rife, but I do not believe that they are able to drum up enough third-party independent sources (say mainstream media mention) that is required for such articles. Publishing in "Cover Up" true-believing bully-rag is not good enough. I will grant that his book received two unfavorable reviews from the American Cancer Society and The ACAHF, but the relevant reviews are more about Rife than about the book itself or Lynes. Perhaps a few sentences can be maintained in the article about Royal Rife, but having this separate article here certainly seems to violate WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Essentially per the nomination. The reliable sources come down to 2 passing (negative) mentions by the American Cancer Society and the Syndney Morning Herald. Both are more concerned with "Rife devices" than with Lynes. I think we can handle this fairly trivial level of notability with a line in the Royal Rife article - there doesn't seem to be enough here to meet WP:BIO for an independent article. MastCell Talk 07:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Never heard of this guy or Royal Rife either. But, 12 books! The fact that the American Cancer Society bothered to unfavorably review his book is significant -- they think he's notable. Even crackpots can be notable and the fact that crackpots have fans should neither help nor hurt in deciding if notable. Perhaps flag to make sure it stays NPOV. RoyLeban (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
N.B.: I'm not implying that MastCell did something wrong. His bio and the article about the book overlap considerably. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the paragraph about the book to Royal_Rife#Modern_revival.2C_marketing.2C_and_health_fraud should work as well. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A passing mention in Royal Rife is at least as much as is indicated by these sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Royal Rife, who is notable beyond dispute. Doesn't mean that this modern version is. Moreschi (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep. Subject has developed his own notability per guidelines beyond any involvement with Rife. Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News, straight Google. His notability is his... for good or bad... and he does not need become a footnote in an article about someone else. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally don't see a whole lot in those Google searches that will enable the creation of a neutral, encyclopedic biography. Am I missing something? Is there non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources out there? All I see is a few disparaging sentences from the American Cancer Society, and a bunch of books published by an obscure specialty publisher than seems to focus on cancer conspiracy theories. MastCell Talk 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know anything about Royal Rife but basic research about this person shows that he is notable enough for an article, with sufficient coverage in verifiable sources, and as the author of 14 books. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was boldy closed and merged with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress (by film title). No need to have two discussions for these lists, and comments made so far are identical in both discussions. Non-admin closure. PC78 (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress (by actress)[edit]

List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress (by actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I mean really. Two lists for the same purpose divided by film? We have this thing called 'defaultsort' that would probably be more useful. Ironholds (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are already too many lists. We don't need new list pages created for each and every sorting pattern. seicer | talk | contribs 12:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress (by film title)[edit]

List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress (by film title) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I mean really. Two lists for the same purpose divided by film? We have this thing called 'defaultsort' that would probably be more useful. Ironholds (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean sortable tables... :) - Mgm|(talk) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress (by actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actor (by actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actor (by film title) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Director (by director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment. I've merged the two AfD discussions. No need to discuss these lists twice. PC78 (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Redundant duplication of Academy Award for Best Actress. PC78 (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merging the lists and turning them into sortable tables means it can provide functionality the information in the article can't. If there is a decision to include it in the article, both list titles are best redirected there. - Mgm|(talk) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects are intended to provide a way for people typing in a common term/misspelling/whatnot to get to the correct page. Why would anyone search for 'List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress (by film title)'? Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Providing useful search terms is not the only purpose of redirects—they also provide a target for old links (both internal and external) to avoid breaking them, to provide useful information where someone might have expected to find it (e.g. in a saved bookmark or from a stale search result), and to preserve edit history for GFDL compliance. We generally don't delete redirects unless they are harmful in some way. DHowell (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the lists and retitle "List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress". Do the actress/title sorting in the article itself. 2 seperate lists with the same information simply arranged differently is a bit redundent. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article already exists, redundancy. A different way of sorting is no reason to create several new lists. Phil153 (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge to a sortable table in the main article. Redundancy has never been a valid reason to delete an article according to deletion policy. One of the purposes of lists is for navigation, and having multiple lists to allow navigation of the same information in different ways has been a long-accepted practice, and at one time in the past having multiple lists was the only way to achieve this, before the sortable list feature was enabled. DHowell (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect - sortable tables exist; an editor's inability or unwillingness to implement them is no excuse to create redundant lists. Redundancy in the sense of repeating particular pieces of information is certainly valuable to an encyclopedia, but redundant articles are not. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to sortable tables. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote a small program to parse the text of these and turn them into sortable tables; my attempt is at List_of_nominees_for_the_Academy_Award_for_Best_Actress_(by_actress) here. If this is suitable (I'm new at this) I'll do it with the others so they can be deleted. I'm not sure where the final sortable table should go however, maybe at Academy_Award_for_Best_Actress? Or should we keep a single seperate article for each of the sortable lists? Thanks for any assistance. Phil153 (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect - I think that the winners should possbily be seperate from the main article, but having five seprate lists is excessive and would be redundant to one sortable table at List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:A7 by PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel • work 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy-man sandwiches[edit]

Lazy-man sandwiches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism/hoax. Ironholds (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to boot RJaguar3 | u | t 06:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced and no indication that this is real. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as something this individual made up. I'm going to invoke WP:SNOW and delete this now.
    WP:MADEUP is not a speedy criteria. Ironholds (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus also indicates that the list should also be removed. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riff driven[edit]

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

WIkipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While I could see value of a few examples of well known songs in an article, the scope of this list pretty much includes any notable rock/pop music song in the last 50 years. The scope is too wide to be useful. A category might be in order, but a list is redundant and too broad to be of encyclopedic value. Cerejota (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but it seems obvious that Cerejota is not a musician, nor knowledgeable about music theory or terminology. Cerejota, you are commenting off of your area of expertise -- leave this to musicians, please. Geĸrίtzl (talk)
  • It looks like you're unhappy with the section containing the list - so am I (and I left a note on the article's talk to that effect). But if that's the case we should remove the list and leave the stubby intro. The article (not the list) does assert notability but I haven't checked whether the concept of riff driven songs is actually notable enough. If it is then we should keep the stub. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep solid references. Deletions should not be used as a way to clean up an article.
    WP:PRESERVE "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing"
    Wikipedia:Deletion "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page (before deleting)"
    WP:DI "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article."
    WP:POTENTIAL "In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort"
    Google news has 324 references to "Riff driven"[38] Google books 69 references[39]
    Nominator failed to do what Wikipedia:Notability requires: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." travb (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as is. "The scope is too wide to be useful" is not a valid argument. The article meets Wikipedia notability requirements. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles: "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available." Wikipedia policy on notability says an article is "notable" if it is "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". User Cerejota's statement, "a list is redundant and too broad to be of encyclopedic value" is entirely subjective (hence this discussion/vote). Geĸrίtzl (talk)
  • Please note that the person who suggested deletion of this article, Cerejota, has been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on the article Roof knocking.
  • I have examined this article top to bottom, but I am just not seeing the connections between Roof knocking and Riff-driven songs. Seriously, could you clear up what the connection is to me, but I just am not seeing it... erm... Are the Israelis warning potential bombing sites by playing Riff-driven songs for them? Surely that's it... Because unless that's it, it is inappropriate to bring up irrelevant and totally unrelated crap about other editors because you don't like their opinion. Grow up. Trusilver 03:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep, remove list "riff-driven song" could easily be a synonym for "rock song". Who says a particular song is "riff driven"? And who says it is notable for it? This article is pure OR I'm afraid, unless proven otherwise. To qualify what I'm talking about, there is absolutely no objective criterion for what should be in this list and what shouldn't; therefore it has no use as an article. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I've changed my "vote" above; I was under the illusion that this was a list article. I think the phrase itself is somewhat notable; however the list is completely arbitrary and should be removed. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 19:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Conditional Keep. I noticed that there is a lot of ghits on this subject, this first led me to lean in favor of keeping it until I started to look through some of them. That there are sources on the subject, there really isn't a question. The problem is that the definition of "Riff driven" seems to be completely arbitrary and subjective depending on the source. As the editor above me pointed out, there is no objective criterion for inclusion on this list... mostly because there is no objective criterion for what determines if something is "riff driven" or even what "riff driven" really means. Keeping this is roughly similar to me creating List of songs that are fairly badassed. I would have no difficulty at all finding google hits about badass songs, but without an objective criteria for what qualifies as badass, it will be nothing more than original research...just like this article. Trusilver 08:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be open to keeping the article if the list was gone and the article was stubbed to a bare sourced definition. All the other issues with the article can be worked out moving forward from that. The list is OR garbage and needs to go though. Trusilver 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Far too subjective a concept for a list. So, clear the list and create an article on the topic, of which there is easily enough information concerning. If it's still a list the next time an AfD comes around, then it's a perfect candidate for delete; indiscriminate, subjective and bound to attract Original Research independent of the most stringent criteria. There is though, nothing wrong with subjective topics having articles pertaining to the idea, so I think this could make a very nice little aside from the generic genre definitions crammed with editor opinion on what defines each and every style of music they can consider. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article, remove list; the list is entirely unencyclopedic and directly violates WP:V and WP:OR - the article should be stubbed and only the basic definition (in the lead) should be retained. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 18:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ceretoja and Travb - David Gerard (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability, term is used in Google Books.--J.Mundo (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. The user who said "riff-driven song could easily be a synonym for rock song" knows not what he/she is saying. Please stay in your area of expertise if you don't know musical terminology and theory. I can name countless rock songs that are not riff-driven. Spacelib (talk) — Spacelib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • That was me. My point was that 90% (don't ask me to cite that!) of rock songs are based on simple repeating chord progressions; beyond that it's a matter of interpretation whether that "drives" the song or not. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 18:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly well over 90% of rock songs are based on a repeating chord progression (more like 99.9%). But there is a huge difference between a chord progression and a continuo or background repeating riff!! "Michelle" has a repeating chord progression, but is not riff-driven. Day Tripper has a repeating chord progression, and is definitely riff-driven. Geĸrίtzl (talk)
        • In fact I'll go further and state that only a handful of songs might ever have been written with no repeating chord progression. Even serialists writing twelve-tone songs repeat the progression, or a variation thereof. And certainly no popular rock song ever has been recorded that did not have a repeating chord progression. I challenge fellow Wikipedians reading this to come up with just one! And "songs" without melodies (e.g. Rap, or spoken word) don't count, as those are not songs. Geĸrίtzl (talk)
        • I agree! However, would you care to venture an objective threshold for the list? (That's what I'm really getting at...) Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 00:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cool, now we're in synch! Thank you, Oli Filth. I could probably give reputable citations for but 10 of the songs on that list... maybe 20 or 30 if I really worked at it. The line between OR and interpretation is a fine one. For example: if I read the musical score to "Cult of Personality" by Living Colour or Satisfaction by the Stones, I, as a musician, can conclude (as any musician would) that it is definitively a riff-driven song, just as Jean-François Champollion could tell you the meanings of the hieroglyphs in Egyptian pyramids. But I would be hard-pressed to find a written citation that said "Cult of Personality is a riff-driven song" or "Nowhere Man is a harmony-driven song." I do not think that it is Original Reseach to translate Egyptian to English, nor to translate musical scores to layperson understanding. Consider this claim: "Norwegian Wood is in Waltz time." I do not have to find some notable written word that states that fact; I need only to see the score, and read the signature, 3/4, to make that claim in a WP article. I have merely analyzed and translated the musical score to an understanding in English. That is not "Original Reseach" but merely translation. Your thoughts? Geĸrίtzl (talk)
            • I do see your point. But maybe it's just me, but I really find it hard to accept WP lists which rely solely on an editor's interpretation to classify a given item as a member or not (for instance, I wouldn't classify Sweet Child of Mine as riff-driven, so who gets the final say?!). Given that lists are already prone to grow with fluff, fancruft and OR tinkering, a list on a musical subject with an interpretative criterion is really asking for trouble! Even if we could keep the list clean, I'd still have to ask what purpose it served to the average reader, given that it wouldn't be based on anything authoritative/verifiable that they could look up. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 08:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment P.S. I am a musician (guitar, bass, keyboards). Geĸrίtzl (talk)
  • Keep article, lose list The article looks sound to me. I share the doubts about the accuracy of the list. Several strike me as being rather more vocal driven than instrumental riff driven. Looks like opinion time there. Not very encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a musician. Peridon (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine essence theory of transsexuality[edit]

Feminine essence theory of transsexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Absurd article, totally WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, made up by User:James Cantor, a colleague of the principle Blanchard to ridicule the transsexuals that they are embattled with with respect to autogynephilia and such (see his talk page for recent ideas of how "fun" this would be). How can the predictions of a 2008 theory have been tested in a 1995 study? How can Dreger be taken seriously as having proposed a new theory of transsexuality? How can Blanchard have desconstructed a theory that nobody had proposed. I recommend that User:James Cantor be canned for his blatant WP:COI on this one Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Ten sources, including highly respected journals like Nature (journal) and Archives of Sexual Behavior. It's perhaps too bad that it doesn't line up with Dick Lyon's POV (Dick is active in transsexuality-related articles on Wikipedia because a major activist, Lynn Conway, is a personal friend), but his dislike of the current scientific consensus on this point doesn't make the subject area non-notable any more than it makes the article as written actually biased. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is from an editor much more active in the transssexuality articles than I am, and firmly in the camp of trying to prop up Bailey against the backlash from the community of transsexuals that he is attacking, sometimes in the name of "science" and other times by denying that what he is writing about is science. It's sick. And WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have put Cantor up to writing this, calling the idea "fun" on his talk page. And yes, Lynn Conway is a friend of mine and a transsexual, one that Dreger is specifically attacking with her "narrative" idea, which is why I care. Dicklyon (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) Keep. I'm not sure this qualifies for "speedy" anything, but it seems like this article could describe an actual theory if it can be re-written from an NPOV standpoint. I'm a bit behind on what the trends are in queer theory and sexology, so I'd like somebody who is NOT involved in this dispute but IS knowledgeable to comment. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 06:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Baily and Kiira would be an 11th reference, this one from The Johns Hopkins University Press. If there are NPOV issues in the article then let's get 'em out. In the meantime you can't delete this on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Here is a google search for those who need it. —Noah 07:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I never meant to suggest that the topic of feminine essence theory or narrative doesn't exist or that an article can't be written on it, if reliable sources are found. But this article is not that -- it's about the Dreger/Blanchard attack on the theory, poorly disguised as a wikipedia article. Let's at least start over and work from pre-Dreger sources like these books and journals. And let's make James Cantor recuse himself from editing on behalf of his colleagues. Dicklyon (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Dick, AfD is solely for ideas that aren't notable. If you think that the subject is actually notable (as you say on my user talk page), then you need to withdraw the nomination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – To better understand where Cantor is coming from in posting this piece of dung article, read this assessment of his close colleague Blanchard and of Dreger, a stauch defender of Cantor's colleague Bailey. It's very clear that what has been started here cannot be the basis of a neutral article. Dicklyon (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Cantor's COI is so strong that he lies about the primary sources in the opening sentences. Ref 1, Dreger, says:
Indeed, TMWWBQ’s title and cover explicitly contrasted with those books on transgenderism which adhered to the ‘‘woman trapped in a man’s body’’ narrative of trans-gender identity, or what I will call hereafter the ‘‘feminine essence’’ narrative. The feminine essence narrative is summed up by Bailey this way:
Since I can remember, I have always felt as if I were a member of the other sex. I have felt like a freak with this body and detest my penis. I must get sex reassignment surgery (a ‘‘sex change operation’’) in order to match my external body with my internal mind. (Bailey, 2003, p. 143)
In keeping with their themes, books that favor the feminine essence narrative have tended to feature on their covers attractive head-to-toes photos of transwomen dressed rela- tively conservatively. Consider, for example, the front cover of Deirdre McCloskey’s Crossing: A Memoir ...
So it's apparent, first, that Dreger attributes the idea to Bailey's book TMWWBQ, contrary to what Cantor claims; and she claims its espoused in a book by McClosky, one of the trans women that she is attacking in her article, attributing it to a book that very clearly denies the essense idea, far from supporting it. Dreger, Bailey, Blanchard, and Cantor all work together on this effort to push their strange theories and ridicule the idea that one can have a gender dysphoria without having a paraphilia type of mental illness. It's just sick, and wikipedia should not support them in this effort. Dicklyon (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This nomination is a retaliatory effort of user:Dicklyon in a long list of his tendacious edits. He has been blocked multiple times for edit warring on this and other topics. He has been topic-banned for similar behaviour on other topics (see here). He and I had a negotiated agreement (see here), which he unilaterally withdrew from a few days ago (see here) because it suited him in his dispute with yet another editor (user:Hfarmer, see here). This is not, in my opinion, a nomination made in good faith.
Feminine essence theory of transsexuality should be evaluated on its own merits: All claims are sourced or multiply sourced, the sources are all high-end, the page presents the alternative view and puts roughly equal attention and sources to the sides, and the page notes the current state of the consensus. I created that page well within the letter and the spirit of WP:COI policies for topic experts, disclosing my relationship with the researcher whose work I cited (see here) and alerting other editors to the page (via WP:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality) so that anyone interested might edit it as they felt fit (see here). Dicklyon's nomination boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or, more apparently, WP:IDONTLIKECANTOR.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article satisfies notability and verifiability with non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources. Also: AfD is not the correct forum for addressing COI concerns; there are other procedures for that. And in any case, the editor accused of COI regarding this article has already issued the proper disclosures and has not edited the page from any particular POV-slant as far as I can tell. I did a review of the sources and the article (and as part of that process cleaned up some of the formatting, but I've not edited the article prior to this AfD). I found the page to be a simple report of a theory that some have put forth; it states that the theory has both supporters and critics and the article does not draw conclusions one way or the other. The theory does exist in that it has been published, the fact that the theory may not be accepted does not change the notability based on its publication, and that is the criteria for inclusion of an article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom needs to re-read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, but in particular needs to read WP:V. Verifiability, not truth. Even if nom believes the claim of this theory to be false, it is indeed a notable - if controversial - fact of its field. Article should probably be expanded and better MoS compliance, but those are reasons to edit, not delete. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Non-notable POV-pushing at its COI worst. The "feminine essence theory" is an obscure neologism coined 7 months ago in a "self-published" source previously challenged by the article creator.[1] This is a direct response to a successful AfD for another POV fork (closed on 8 January)[2] about Cantor's friends J. Michael Bailey[3] and Ray Blanchard.[4] The only two articles that have ever used the term "feminine essence theory" were by Bailey and Blanchard and are part of what is currently titled Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in Wikipedia. That article is where this new term should reside (if anywhere). All the allowable references in this new article are already sourced there. Jokestress (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:James Cantor is a single-purpose account editing Wikipedia for two reasons: to promote his own writings and those of his sexologist friends,[5] and to malign their most notable critics (including me).[6] This article achieves both of his COI goals. Cantor and his friends are essentialists (or more accurately, biological reductionists). This term is a straw man created to make scientific and philosophical challenges to their ideology easier to refute. Disease models of gender variance and research into its etiology are in the midst of a major paradigm shift akin to the depathologization of homosexuality in 1973. Cantor and his friends run the largest clinic in the world devoted to reparative therapy of gender identity disorder in children and are involved in re-writing the manual that will proclaim whether or not gender variance will remain an official "disorder" for the next decade. These "experts" are holding firm in the face of mounting scientific evidence that transsexualism may be better conceived of as a form of neurological intersex with both hereditary and environmental causes. They also seek to discredit the social constructivism that challenges their most deeply-held beliefs about how the world works. Because they cling so tightly to their essentialist dogma, they misrepresent their opponents' views within their essentialist/reductionist model. Because they think transwomen are essentially men, they erroneously assume that their critics all argue that transwomen are essentially women. The emerging models are much more sophisticated and nuanced than that, and this latest straw man is designed to eliminate these complexities via reductio ad absurdum (as one might expect from reductionists). These guys like to dress up their questionable ideas as "science" by throwing around the word "theory" in a rather unscientific manner. Wikipedia should note their unfalsifiable neologism where applicable, but this sort of COI boosterism hardly warrants its own article. Jokestress (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Speaking of conflicts of interest, User:Jokestress is Andrea James, a prominent trans activist. About Andrea James' footnotes:
    • [1] The decision about the Arch Sex Behav comemntaries was rendered at RSN (actually, in several discussions there, as Jokestress and other trans activists have been unhappy with the decision and have pushed for reconsideration), not by any individual editor. When Cantor and I (and other editors) conform to the RSN decision, then that's not really a POV choice; it's compliance with policies. Furthermore, contrary to the assertion here, Dreger's "feminine essence narrative" language was in a fifty-plus-page-long peer-reviewed journal article, not in a commentary. And I'm sure that Jokestress will explain shortly how an article 'about a seven-month-old neologism' has so many citations from the 1990s, and why an article about an idea has to be recast as an article about a word.
    • [2] The AfD resulted in a redirect, not deletion, was proposed by the most significant editor of the page, and was not opposed by anyone. Ironically, this new article was created directly because of Jokestress' ongoing campaign to restrict the contents of Homosexual transsexual solely to information about the term instead of the general idea of transwomen who are attracted to men. Feminine essence theory of transsexuality wouldn't exist if Jokestress hadn't repeatedly implied that there were other, better, more widely accepted ideas of transsexual sexuality. When Jokestress failed to answer my repeated questions about what exactly those more widely accepted ideas were, I asked a relevant expert, who told me that that there are only two widespread ideas: Blanchard's taxonomy (supported by nearly all researchers and rejected by nearly all trans activists) and the woman-trapped-in-a-man's-body story that is familiar to most college students (supported by nearly all trans activists and rejected by all researchers). Since several reliable sources were apparently available, I asked Cantor whether he thought it would be fun to create a new article, and apparently he did.
    • [6] But Jokestress is right that I will always believe that publishing the names and photographs of a researcher's children with nasty comments like "'Kate': a cock-starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on the idea of it?"[40] was despicable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page is an important contribution, because it articulates an idea that the general public and many, many transsexuals, including Lynn Conway, believe. Dicklyon's assertion that nobody believes it is simply false. This page will provide a place to keep up with evidence for and against the idea, and there are several existing pages that should rapidly refer to it.ProudAGP (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no verifiable evidence that anybody believes this ridiculous strawman, is there? Certainly not the people who made it up (Dreger and Blanchard, according to the sources cited so far). I think Conway would see it for what it is. Shall we ask her? Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Our nominator wrote has acknowledged that the topic of this article merits coverage. If the topic merits coverage, but someone thinks the current instance of the article needs work then the wikipedia's policies state the contributor with the concern should try discussion to get those concerns addressed -- not deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I said if reliable sources are found. I haven't yet drawn the conclusion that the concept is notable. Have you? Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's referenced, but editors must work together to ensure a neutral point of view. --Simon Speed (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"referenced" is not the same as "verifiable". And where are you going to find someone who can "work together" with James Cantor, other than the people on his side? I'm not going to touch it, except for some tags maybe; it might be better left as a testament to his biased POV. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Looking at the references this is clearly a noteable, verifiable theory of transsexualism. Let me argue it to you this way. In the article as written research is cited which says that part of the male brain of a transsexual is in the female size range. [This link is to a youtube video by a transsexual child who appeared on 20/20.] This child "Jazz" will tell you that they "have a girl brain in a boy body". That is basically the feminine essence theory of transsexualism. If this theory was not noteable to the general public then how would a 7 year old come to know it. If it were just a strawman then how would a 7 year old know it? They would not, because it is noteable, and not a straw man. However I do think that renaming the article "Brain Sex Theory of transsexualism would be more appropriate based on how it is now written. Though I suppose in the future the feminine essence as it has been conceptualized outside of western intellectual traditions could be incorporated into the article. (i.e. in a sense the whole Native American idea of the "two-spirit" is an example of a feminine essence concept of male gender variance, and what we would definately call transsexualism). --Hfarmer (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collected references[edit]

  1. ^ User:James Cantor and User:WhatamIdoing claim all commentaries in the issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior where the term first appeared are "self-published sources" when they want to exclude a commentary critical of their ideas, and a reliable source when they want to include one supportive of their ideas (as we see here).
  2. ^ See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blanchard,_Bailey,_and_Lawrence_theory_controversy
  3. ^ Cantor is blurbed on the sales page for Bailey's book.
  4. ^ Blanchard is Cantor's mentor/co-author/boss.
  5. ^ See the edit histories of his three accounts: James Cantor MarionTheLibrarianWriteMakesRight.
  6. ^ For instance, he edited my Wikipedia bio, removing my primary occupation and credentials and calling me "the Al Sharpton rather than the ML King sort of activist." His source for the latter was a blog quoting him anonymously. You can also expect an email, post on your talk page, or comment here from User:WhatamIdoing about what a terrible human being I am. ;)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Assemblies of Yahweh. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obadiah School of the Bible[edit]

Obadiah School of the Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no, single reliable independent source sufficient to establish notability, apparent WP:COI problems with article creators. This sect currently has a lengthy entry of its own which references this school, though that page too has no reliable sources. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see above Dalet School. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 16:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Merge to Assemblies of Yahweh. I have looked at all the sources, including the Assemblies website, and for some reason, I can't find a single mention of the Obadiah School of the Bible. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Obadiah School of the Bible is an integral part of the Assemblies of Yahweh ministry. Graduate Obadiah’s is a term exclusive to those who have graduated from the school and it deserves a mention so that over lookers can understand its purpose. Of course, whether one thinks that the AOY is notable or not will depend on whether they think these institutions are as well In Citer (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)— In Citer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I personally find the tag placed on In Citer signature as not only trying to poison the well but offense. I would ask that you remove it. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt have you read WP:SPA? If so, on what basis would you argue for its removal?
  • Comment - Are you saying that Citer is “…suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking”? That is an assumption of bad faith, which is extremely frowned upon. ShoesssS Talk 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*cmt no i'm saying he's a single purpose account which is what he is and that tag is apt for (practically designed for) AfD discussions.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please see discussion page that deals with this concern. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because In Citer is a relatively new user (November 12) does not make him a "single purpose account". The tag is never meant as a compliment, and I honestly don't see why the tag has been slapped on his comment. He is the creator of the article, if that's the point that someone is trying to make. But everyone is welcome to participate in the AfD forum. Mandsford (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to nom: Please be careful when nominating AFDs. WP:COI is not a valid reason to delete an article. You should familiarise yourself with the deletion policy. Best, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Zain Ebrahim: You should familiarize yourself with reading and reading comprehension, particularly as regards to reading the actual nomination, before offering your hollow advice. As i said: "No single reliable independent source sufficient to establish notability."Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go forth and Merge with Assemblies of Yahweh. The article reads like marketing collateral -- it could easily be sliced and diced into the AoY article without losing context. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loot ninja[edit]

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

Borderline ad, and no evidence of meeting WP:WEB --fvw* 04:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Agree that this is a borderline ad, and certainly needs to be cleaned up for NPOV. Not sure that this is cause for deletion, but certainly needs to be more neutral and encyclopedic. --MrShamrock (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB pretty comprehensively. Probably even a valid CSD A7. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as vanity wikipedia page. No google news hits outside of the 3 from the Loot Ninja web site itself. Google web search turns up items such as Digg and Technocratti but I didn't see anything that comes close to meeting the WP:WEB requirements. —Noah 06:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Edited for NPOV. There are many other gaming blogs with much less web penetration with Wikipedia pages. Mjbanks (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable website. Appears to be a game review site built by a few friends trying to use wikipedia for publicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Orth (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can see this being a legitimate article, but rather about the term in the (mmorpg) video gaming world, as in, those people who decide to take loot which isn't theirs to take. That said, I'd suggest a delete with a redirect to MMORPG. --Izno (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point. If the resolution of the discussion is that the web site "Loot ninja" is not notable then Inzo's suggestion should be followed. There are valid references that loot ninja is a commonly used MMORPG term. —Noah 02:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ugh completely non-notable. JBsupreme (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see this as a legit page, from alexa ratings and general exposure to video games / game industry the web site and wiki entry seem valid as an up & coming site as a gaming blog. Site exploration shows everything in the Wiki entry to be factual, there are many similar entries for other sites of this type in Wikipedia.--Willieonglock 19:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding undated comment was added at 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • You have to start somewhere. I'm an amateur game designer and familiar with the subject at hand, both being a Loot Ninja and the website Loot-Ninja.com, which is the article in question.--Willieonglock 13:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Izno, I see no conflict of interest from my comments. As stated above Loot Ninja serves 2 definitions. 1. In a MMOG someone who steals treasure/loot that is not rightfully theirs (both fun and annoying, do try). 2. Loot-Ninja.com a video game website. I would have considered being familiar with the site, video games, and looting would only point out that there is a level public awareness to serve the wikipedia entry. I'm still learning about being a contributor/editor to WP but I am suprised to find sites like Civilization Fanatics Center, GameZombie and Wazup having entries while there is an issue here.--Willieonglock 15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comments show that you have an innate conflict of interest (however much you temper it with self reason and such).
    Next then is this sentence here: "I would have considered being familiar with the site, video games [...] would only point out that there is a level public awareness [...]." — Being familiar with an entity does not make that entity notable by the definitions of Wikipedia which say that you must be able to support that claim to notability by producing reliable secondary sourcing which goes into the article topic in detail (another guideline you should have a look at is WP:WEB, a sub-notability guideline).
    If you are surprised by their existence, have a look to see if they have anything which makes them notable in those senses, whether included in the article or found by searching the Internet (see also WP:OTHERSTUFF). If they do not, they have the same problem as the article at hand, and thus could also be considered appropriate for deletion and would thus probably be welcome at WP:Articles for deletion. --Izno (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:COI cannot be attributed to Willieonglock from one simple post. He didn't even vote. WP:AGF Kallimina (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of fact that he has COI, whether or not he !votes. I was assuming good faith, and almost commented on the fact that he didn't !vote one way or the other, but rather left us to decide. Have a little good faith yourself. :) --Izno (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I detect at least a couple of slices of spam if not a whole tin. Are there notable blogs? Maybe. Is this one? I doubt it. (On a side point, is that logo supposed to look like a South Park Ninja?) Peridon (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under criteria A7 (yes, I know the AfD is four days in already.) Article does not indicate how this website is important in the slightest. Marasmusine (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saanich Police Department[edit]

Saanich Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'd hoped not to have to bring this to AfD especially in light of this recent AfD which closed as a re-direct. However my re-direct was reverted with some minor claims of notability added. However the articls cited re: podcasting acknowledge only the PD as a source of being the first podcasting PD. Does that count as verified (simply repeating a first-hand assertion) and if it does, does that establish notability? I'm bringing it here for some discussion since apparently this won't be non-controversial If this closes as re-direct I'd please ask that the admin please protect the re-direct to keep this from being re-created. Thoughts? StarM 03:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rationale per below.--Cahk (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel this is getting silly - first you said there's no notability so I added 2 'Canada's first' into the article. You are saying how to proof what the PD said is true - this is like saying unless I can find contadictory evidence, this will not be accepted (even a google search finds nothing but SPD). What constitute as 'minor' notability? I looked into other Canadian police agencies (ie. Gatineau Police and Service de police de Longueuil) article (don't even get me started on US agencies - unless rank and salary information considered to be notable) their claim of notability is simply because the PD serves a big population but virtually ZERO information on the article whereas the article on SPD DOES have information so what constitute as acceptable and what's not? Clearly WP:ORG did not specify population as acceptable for notability. The article as it stands now is a stub and I do plan on expanding it as I go, but I feel like the 'notability' issue is being blown out of proportion. ‎--Cahk (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Simply because something hasn't yet been deleted doesn't mean it won't be. Articles are judged independently for notability and because something else is worse, doesn't mean something else should be kept because it's less bad. Re: population, please see WP:BIG. THe issue with WP:ORG is the fact that, The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability.. Also: Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead. It doesn't mean there isn't place for the material, it just may not be sufficiently notable for its own article. StarM 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem with what you are saying is this: If you look at the history of [41], an admin SPECIFICALLY said the reason to keep the article was 'police department of a large city' which contradicts WP:BIG. Sure, those 2 PDs might receive national attention (as with a million other law enforcement agencies), the article itself does not cite a thing, nevermind notability.--Cahk (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COmment the opinion was made in one AfD. Doesn't mean it applies to any AfD beyond that. StarM 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now you are just contradicting yourself - If previous AfD doesn't apply to Gatineau Police article, why does the OBPD precedent apply to SPD article? This is one reason I think the issue of 'notability' is being blown WAY out of porportion. --Cahk (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no what I said is one argument raised doesn't necessarily apply to another different debate. Consensus reached in two AfDs about the non-notability of a police department in the same area with a similar level of non-notability can be said to apply. We disagree, that's why I brought it here for consensus. StarM 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Correct, except so-called consensus changes from time to time depending who wants to weigh in on the issue. Just because they are geographically proximate to each other, that shouldn't mean a applys to b - especially the composition of the article is extremely different from OBPD. When I think about it, your argument will work like this: If Vancouver Police Department was nominated as non-notable, a lot of editors will say it is notable and thus every police forces surrounding Vancouver would automatically be notable because they are geographically proximate?--Cahk (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're right, consensus can change. I think police departments for large cities have coverage and have done things that make them notable. I won't say never, but I think it's extremely likely that PDs for cities such as New York, Vancouver, London, LA, etc. and other large cities will never be put to AfD, never mind deleted. However small towns and cities are less likely to have police departments that attract the attention to be notable. I was born and raised in a small town that's only on the map due to its proximity to New York City. It has an article here because of the consensus that populated, census-designated places are notable, however if someone were to write an article for its police force (actually shared with the next village) it would be re-directed or deleted post-haste. There's no reason police forces, etc. can't be covered within the town article and a re-direct put in place for searchers, but in the vast majority of the cases, they're not independently notable. Make sense? Wht do you disagree with? I'd like to understand it better so maybe we can sort this out. StarM 15:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't disagree with you re: merging info onto the city/town,etc page - what I am objecting here is the wishy-washy application (as I said already, there are TONS of US sheriff/police, etc that are probably not even notable to residents in the next state (nevermind 'national' or 'international' coverage). I also object to the fact majority of those said articles only have rank/salary which I consider to be non-enclycopedic but allowed to be on Wiki whereas this article have plenty of citations and events that I considered to be 'notable' but is subject to AfD. How to determine what is 'minor' notability? Who determines citation are not 'enough' and why some articles were saved just by putting 'stub' tag (as is this SPD article is also a stub). I have no problem in saying that OBPD was not up to standard as finding info has been difficult (but not un-doable by any means), but to compare OBPD to SPD in terms of quality, I feel it's unjustified.--Cahk (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment because we're humans and different people participate in different AfDs, you see different opinions. If you don't disagree with the merging, why did you revert this one leading to it coming here. I didn't want to delete it - I wanted to re-direct it. I've nominated many US PDs, as well as Australian and of-late, Canadian. If you don't think an article meets the notablity standards, take it to AfD or merge it outright. Merging doesn't require AfD but it may if it's contentious. Anyone can tag an article for citations or notability and the onus is on editors to provide the materials to refute that tag. That's why things are up for discussion because the sad fact is in many cases, people don't work to save an article unless it's up for Afd. StarM 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, I m saying I don't disagree with merging/redirecting OBPD (but I had to explain my case on that Afd) - this article is very different (imo). As to if AfD brings people to save the article, I think you might want to examine my edits over the past 2~3 weeks on all BC PDs. They are all undergoing major 'facelifts' and information addition so if you are implying I am saving this article because of your AfD, then you might wish to re-consider that.--Cahk (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid article about a current, operational police department. I see absolutely no reason or valid argument to delete this article. MrShamrock (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment existence is not notability. Please see the referenced AfDs which dealt with substantially the same issues. StarM 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, existence is not notability. My comment still stands, I see absolutely no reason or valid argument to delete this article. By the way, the Saanich Police Department is mentioned specifically in 2180 google hits and 22 books. In my opinion, notability is established. --MrShamrock (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the books are false positives, they mention people going to or being taken to the PD, they are not discussing the police department. The valid argument and /reason is in past practice but also the relevant clauses of WP:ORG. But we've made our cases, we'll see what others have to say. StarM 05:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: StarM, I feel that you need to abandon OBPD's AfD - I 'recreated' that article in hopes of expanding it so it doesn't have the elements of what I have right now on SPD - if you compare the two, SPD is far more sourced, informative and 'notable'.--Cahk (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to abandon anything, you do not have complete control of the article, it's up to consensus. More sourced and informative does not mean notable. StarM 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
StarM, the bottom line is that if you're going to delete this article then you may as well delete every article about every police department in Wikipedia. This one is just as notable and relevant as any other such article. --MrShamrock (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to re-direct them when I find them. If controversial, like this one, I bring it here. The simple fact is most local PDs aren't notable and consensus has shown that over and over agai. StarM 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Saanich, British Columbia and Protect per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to get enough RS hits, including a number of things that seem at first glance to be beyond mere reporting about crimes in the area. Agree that the article's lack of internal assertions of notability and weak sourcing mean it's currently lacking, but it seems reasonable to expect that a good encyclopedia article is within reach. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references that back up the two firsts are both reliable and thus making the department notable for pioneering a new form of crimefighting. - Mgm|(talk) 01:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Side note: If I didn't look into the article in detail, I would've made a vote to close this nomination. If the added sources check out, it's an obvious keep, if not, the redirect can be reinstated. Neither result in a deletion, so there's no reason to have a deletion debate. Discussion about merges can be had on the talk page with notifications on relevant project noticeboards (and contacting previous commenters) if participation is lacking. - Mgm|(talk) 01:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not looking for deletion, I'm looking for consensus and if it's found, then the re-direct to be protected since it's been reverted. The same editor reverted another re-direct resulting in a second AfD for an article -- resulting in the same re-direct close. I agree, I usually don't want to use AfD for re-direction but sometimes it's needed. StarM 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "The same editor reverted another re-direct resulting in a second AfD" I didn't 'revert' the re-direct, I actually started the article from scratch and the information were not merely copied from whoever started the article first. Mind you you were the one who started the AfD on that one as well. --Cahk (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes you did. The re-direct was there and you over-wrote it. I was indeed, and consensus agreed both times that it wasn't significantly notable to warrant its own article. In general I don't think local police departments (or ambulance services) are notable per WP:ORG. In most times, they're simple re-directs. However at times editors want a full AfD so I'm happy to bring it here to get consensus. So far Oak bay and Gatineau have both closes as re-direct (despite your comment above that Gatineau was notable simply due to size). I'd prefer not to have to do umpteen AfDs but if you want each one discussed, we'll do it. StarM 15:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Either you COMPLETELY misunderstood me or you made a typo - I said Gatineau WAS NOT notable and I even prod it - I said the article was saved, by an admin, because of population before and I question that decision and how it relates to notability. --Cahk (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood. I thought you were supporting gatineau pd being kept and using it as a reason to keep this. ANyone can remove a PROD and when Gatineau was re-PRODded I removed it simply because an article can't be PRODded twice (with two declined speedies too. That was one person's opinion, no consensus. Someone thought that made it notable but it likely would not have survived an AfD. StarM 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. All along through OBPD and this AfD, I have questioned many times why that article was kept (esp. been prod before) but it's gone now so case closed on that one.--Cahk (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And you are making that comment when you live in VA... am I missing something? It's like saying since I live in Canada and I never heard of the x amount of police forces in Virginia which makes them non-notable and thus can be deleted away? --Cahk (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Thank you Cahk for your voice of reason. For those who vote deletion, I'd like you to identify your nearest police department's Wikipedia article. Then, justify the article's relevance and notability. Thanks --MrShamrock (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: MrShamrock, my concern is not so much about geography but more because of an anon. editor who wrote an incoherent passage in justifying deleting this article but couldn't really show why.--Cahk (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not a sherriff, it's a police department. See Sheriff#Canada. --MrShamrock (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ballad (music). MBisanz talk 02:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop ballad[edit]

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

This article contains nothing but original research. There is absolutely no context or mention of the article's importance, and no sources whatsoever. Also, there is little information in the article, except for a long, useless, subjective list. There is also no hope for it. We already have a page for ballad. Users can decipher what a pop ballad is by reading and joining both terms. Orane (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but remove the list. This is a notable topic per Google news search [42] and e.g. [43], [44], [45] but not a very good article on it. JJL (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a slight discrepancy, though. "Pop ballad" isn't a genre of music. The term pop ballad comes from joining two separate terms: pop music and ballad (a slow song with a refrain and particular metre). There is no need to combine the two terms and create an article for it. For example, we have rock ballad, R&B ballad, country ballad and other variants. People can join the terms themselves: a pop ballad is a slow song in the pop genre, a rock ballad is a ballad in the rock genre, etc. Orane (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Orane's nom and comment. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unremarkable amalgamation of the terms Pop and ballad. There's nothing independent about the topic, and no need for such an indiscriminate list of so called bands. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Off topic. What the article have is a list of bands and singers that sings pop-ballads, but nobody can really say that a pop-ballad is. Its no useful info included. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Redirect Encyclopedia Britannica describes a pop ballad as a sentimental song and then has a copy of its article for Ballad; it is essentially treating pop ballad as a redirect for ballad. At the very least we should be doing the same. Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What we're also trying to avoid is the tens and even hundreds of music articles on songs/albums that keep putting "pop ballad" in the genre field. It's actually laughable. A person seeing this thinks of Wikipedia as a joke. A redirect to "ballad" may further encourage the assumption that a ballad is a genre. Orane (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, we're not affiliated with Encyclopedia Britannica. We don't have to do what they do. Orane (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about having to remove Pop ballad as a genre so regularly is interesting. If the page was redirect you would still be able to use the "what links here" function which would allow you to find the cases of misuse relatively easily.
No we don't have to follow Britannica, however we do have to follow reliable sources. I merely picked Britannica as it is a respected tertiary source which, like us, has to decide on the notability of certain clasifications of songs. Here is an extract from the article on Popular music in the Grove Music Online:
In the Western world, including Eastern Europe and Latin America, the quintessential musical vehicle for depicting such relationships ['pure' love etc] is the pop ballad, a transnational genre that rigorously avoids reference to any social contexts or constraints, portraying instead an amorphous, ‘virtual’ world of the emotions. Although neglected by ethnomusicologists, international versions of the pop ballad, from pop Java to the songs of Julio Iglesias, are increasingly pervasive features of world music cultures.
Going from this quote alone I don't really see the issue in describing pop ballad as a genre, however a wider scan of the literature is probably necessary. Overall plenty of evidence that this is notable enough for a redirect and to be honest enough to leave this as an article. Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One quote should not determine whether or not we keep an article. We cannot write an entire article solely from this source. Secondly, to be completely honest, I doubt that reference to "genre" above was talking about genre of music. Since genre is, essentially, a category or style, the article could be talking about the category/style of a song [a slow love song vs. an upbeat dance number etc], rather than the genre of the music. In any case, the most that should be done is to redirect this page to Ballad (music). But "ballad" in the sense of the word, depicts the metre, structure and tone/subject of the songs, regardless of genre. It is not a genre of itself. Orane (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I count three source now: firstly the Encyclopedia Britannica article (I have looked at it again and the whole article is called pop ballad, it does not seem to be a redirect to their article ballad, but vice versa), secondly the relevant sections from the Grove article, and finally an extract from the Oxford English Dictionary which has the first reported usages of the term (put on the talk page).
I accept you point that the meaning of genre in the Grove article may not be in the music genre sense, however ultimately that is a side issue. This is about whether pop ballad is a widely used term in reliable sources; it does not matter whether it is a genre or something else.
A redirect to a section in Ballad (music) with all this information would be fine in my opnion (I am glad that we agree about this). If the section ever got too big it can always be split off into its own article. Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: indiscriminate list, article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- missing the point. The singular topic of "pop ballad" is almost never covered in any of the Google article you mentioned. They mention pop ballad when they describe a song--it's a ballad, and it's a pop song-- but there is no explanation of what a pop ballad is. In any case, as one person stated, the two terms should not be amalgamated. Poor example, but bear with me. It's just like saying "black dog". There are white dogs, fluffy dogs, brown dogs etc. But these are two separate terms: the colour black, and the animal dog. We would never create an article on "brown dog" or "black dog", so why would we create an article for pop ballad, when there are rock ballads, R&B ballads, soul ballads and every other kinds of ballads? If anything, the most we should be doing is merging pop ballad with the ballad article. Regarding the US President example you gave: that's totally different. There is a long history of presidents for a lot of countries, with infinite information. One of the main issues with this article is that it lacks a lot of authoritative sources, and it's not distinguishable. What separates pop ballad from R&B ballad, or country ballad, or soul ballad? Do we need to create articles for these song styles too? Orane (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Sparks[edit]

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

I don't see much claim to notability here, having collaborated with well-known people could be it but that seems awfully vague (and unreferenced) here. --fvw* 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He CLAIMS to have collaborated... The article is a vanity piece with that unmistakable high-school-can't-get-a-date aroma; the guy's blog is...well, a blog. His tenure at RealGM? Even if it were true (I can't find confirmation) it wouldn't establish notability. But check it out: I can only find him as a member, someone who talks sports among thousands of others. More specifically: this suggests he may not have been "the face" of the site (and I wonder about that metaphor in the first place). Drmies (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a vanity page to me, just a high school student that has some kind teachers. Nothing to indicate notability. Matty (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has been around since November of 2007. Obviously there's some credibility in some way or another if it's been up for over a year and hasn't been deleted due to lack of sources. User:Jbeck2k2 ((User talk:Jbeck2k2)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbeck2k (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jbeck, maybe the article was given enough time to grow stronger, or maybe no one ran into it. Either way, you've had a year to add sources that establish the subject's notability. That it hasn't been deleted yet does not mean it's notable. For instance, I'd like to see proof that Sparks was so important on RealGM, when there doesn't seem to be a single mention on that website that proves that rather bold statement. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per Jbeck2k2. travb (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which argument of Jbeck's precisely do you agree with? Or, what did Jbeck say that makes the article in line with WP:N, even though the article doesn't have a single reference? "It hasn't been deleted yet"? Drmies (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly gave me a chuckle. Not just a keep, but a strong keep based on... um.... well... because the article was never deleted yet so why should it be now? Just once in a while, User:Inclusionist, could you pretend to have a legitimate reason to keep something? Trusilver 08:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larkin (dormatory)[edit]

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

This article is about a single dorm at Stanford University. It definitely fails WP:NOTE. Jonathan321 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - until there's something that sets this dorm apart from all the other dorms. --fvw* 02:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's nothing special here. I guess CSD#7 does not include buildings? Shame. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The apparent claim to notability is a mention in the footnote linked that Tiger Woods stayed in the dorm while attending Stanford. Doesn't seem to meet notability standards by itself. Nathan Orth (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article does not assert notability other than being the 'largest all-freshman dorm' at Stanford University, which isn't enough to merit an article. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Photography of Skopelos[edit]

Museum of Photography of Skopelos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no substantial text. Has had notability tag since August 2008. MrShamrock (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's a stub. Mentioned in several books when the city name is spelled a bit differently. May be a transliteration issue. StarM 03:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - StarM, can you point out exactly which book this Museum in mentioned in? Because that link you posted goes to 7 books that only happen to have the phrase "Museum of Photography" and the word Skopelos, but they do not mention this Museum specifically. This certainly does nothing to establish notability. And Oakshade, I put this article up for deletion because it lacks notability, not because it requires expansion. I see no need to expand, nor any sense in expanding, an article that lacks notability. I respectfully disagree with both of your arguments to keep this article. MrShamrock (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Duplicate !vote stricken by Hersfold (t/a/c) at closing.[reply]

    • COmment it may be that it's the photography center as commented below and seen here and here. If we use that name, see also: here about the founding and this affiliation with the Greek Monistry of culture. May well need to be renamed. StarM 05:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • MrShamrock, you typed "no substantial text" is one of the reasons you put this up for AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this museum the same as the 'Photographic Center of Skopelos' as described here? http://www.greeka.com/sporades/skopelos/skopelos-excursions/skopelos-photographic-center.htm. If so, there are multiple ghits that establish validity, if not notability. --Lockley (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, well I don't see anything in that website that links it to the article, the website does not describe the 'Photographic Center of Skopelos' as being a museum at all. If anything, this article should be deleted and a new article should be created about the 'Photographic Center of Skopelos'. --MrShamrock (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment renaming doesn't require deletion. StarM 05:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article would benefit from editing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being mentioned in a book or directory falls short of showing notability , in that it is not "substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources." Someone created robotically stubs for every Greek "museum" in some online directory. Some are notable, others are just a one room curio shop, or someone's small private collection. Each should have independent references (more than their own website) with more than directory type information such as location and hours. The directory apparently set a very low standard for what it called a "museum." Edison (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question don't you think an affiliation with the Greek Ministry of Culture confers some notability? I think this is far more than a curio shop in someone's yard. This is a museum recognised by the country. StarM 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said hundreds of these stubs were created by copying a directory to individual Wikipedia articles. An 'affiliation" means what exactly? "Recognized" means what? That some ministry says, yes, it is one of thousands of museums, some of which are important cultural institutions of worldwide renown, and others of which are curio shops or private collections?Are there reliable and independent sources with significant/substantial coverage of this museum? Please add them. Many of the stubs should be deleted, and it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff without good references. The two refs included with the article seem marginal. Edison (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment we're talking about the Greek Ministry of Culture, not a two-bit local chamber of commerce. It's the national government. There may not be sources in English because it's a Greek museum but sources in English are not required. Unfortunately I don't speak Greek so I don't know it's name in Greek to look it up, but there's at least one English source available. The stubs were created to increase coverage of museums in non-English speaking countries. Museums are generally notable, this one doesn't appear to be an exception. StarM 02:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Calling something a museum certainly does not make it notable. Being in a directory put out by a national ministry does not make something notable if it is not a discriminating listing like a national register, which rejects many unimportant sites seeking to be on it. Many things in the directory which was the source for the flood of stubs about Greek museums are nonnotable, being curio shops or basically shops offering a few pieces of art for sale to tourists. Each needs sources to show it is notable or at least once was notable. Edison (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough for me. This source seems usable. This, too. Zagalejo^^^ 05:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Official museum affiliation with the national Greek Ministry of Culture which recognises them as national Greek heritage naturally is about as far from notable as we can get? Mmm. I'll let you decide on that one. But also remember that a lot of information may be available even on the web in Greek. Just remembering Peter Crouch's robotic dance at the 2006 World Cup. The Bald One White cat 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as being easily notable under WP:GROUP through the most cursory of searches. Should be tagged for additional sources and for expansion rather than for deletion. Not being fixed after a tag, no matter how long it was so, is no reason to bring to AfD as Wiki has no deadline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had kinda hoped these museums had been expanded by now and am a little disappointed given the size of this project that they haven't. They were "robot" generated form a missing notable listed as part of official Greek heritage museums which were the criteria for notabililty. Note there were hundreds of other museums not started because they weren't considered notable enoough, only those which are officially considered of national significance by the Greek Ministry of Culture. I got around to expanding a few but I can't be expected to to everything solely. I scouted around before starting them all and I could see there were plenty of reliable sources to expand them all. I had anticipated that Wp:Museums or WP:Greece or anybody with the desire for knowledge would have tried to expand them rather than placing notability tags on most of them. C'mon guys collaborate!! The Bald One White cat 22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 string (music). Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

String squeak[edit]

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

This is not notable, it has been abandoned, there are no references, and it is already covered on the page string (music). Conical Johnson (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to string (music), which does not presently cover some of the aspects of this article (e.g., whether or not these sounds are desirable, and their inclusion in some notable recordings). JulesH (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether or not they are desirable is really a non-anything. It isn't really a matter of whether it's desirable, because it is a fact of life for someone playing roundwound strings. That's similar to asking whether key click sounds are desirable on an organ. It is one natural aspect of the sound of the instrument. As for naming songs in which one can hear string squeak, we may as well edit the drum page to name all the songs in which the drummer can be heard to drop his stick, or songs in which one can hear the clicking keys of a clarinet. Conical Johnson (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to string (music). Merge in any pertinent information not already in string (music). A list of songs containing string squeak is not really notable. Therefore, I suggest a redirect, not a merge, since all we really need to do is redirect to the string (music) article as is. -- kainaw™ 15:07, 6 January 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 02:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, and copy the paragraph if it fits in. Seems like a useful redirect to have. --fvw* 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tump[edit]

The result was revert to a redirect. Again Grutness...wha? 00:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. It has been deleted twice by proposed deletion, and proposed for deletion a third time. (See the logs.) If it is deleted as a result of a community discussion, it can subsequently be speedily deleted. Or if the community decides to keep it, it can be turned into an encyclopedia article. Fg2 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, slangdef or neologism. --fvw* 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definition--if that. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • … or the community could just redirect it, as it has been redirected three times before, to the article for which this is a genuine alternative name. Repeatedly nominating this for deletion has been a huge waste of time, and getting an AFD consensus in order to enable repeatedly pushing this through speedy deletion in the future is merely creating more time wasting for the future. Editors could have simply restored the redirect — an ordinary editorial action that actually takes one third of the number of edits taken by an AFD nomination and doesn't waste administrator time with a cycle of repeated speedy deletions in the future. There are other tools in the toolbox apart from deletion nominations. Uncle G (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, browsing through the history. Can we not still do that? Or do we have to wait for the AfD to close, perhaps with a deletion, until the next person recreates the article? Drmies (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Y'mean waste everyone's time then twiddle our thumbs until next time? Yeah, we could, I suppose. But then again... Grutness...wha? 00:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rabindra Gurung[edit]

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

Notability tag of the article had been removed. The article seems more like a profile information for the User page; the author should expand his own information in his User Page rather than make a new article that has little significance. The whole article has been presented as a curriculum vitae of the person himself showing his experiences and insignificant list of links. Please note that the sort of information that has been provided in the article, its significance does not meet the standards and purpose of this encyclopedia. Absurdlyevil (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FlipScript[edit]

Article about commercial website selling products. Text of article does not make any attempt to establish any sort of notability. The only sources are its own site and a very obscure blog page, not a reliable source. It's written to sound promotional instead of educational, and without anything to say about why anyone reading an encyclopedia should care, I don't think it would ever be anything but a brochure. I prodded article, but an anon user deleted the notice without comment and without addressing any of the problems, so am listing for AfD. DreamGuy (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page. I have no affiliation with the company and I discovered it recently. I've been creating ambigrams for over 30 years and this company is very interesting to people interested in ambigrams. If the material sounds promotional, sorry about that -- I took what I could find. The 200,000 strokes stat is interesting, even if it is something the company is touting. If you can find more info, by all means add it.
If for no other reason, they are notable because they are the first company to provide customized ambigram products, with computer-generated ambigrams. I did not add a page for Glyphusion, the company that created the technology, or any of the other licenses because I don't think they're as notable now (this could change in the future, for example, if Glyphusion had hundreds of licensees instead of just four).
Competitors such as CafePress and Zazzle also have pages. Zazzle's page is about the same size, with about the same level of content.
I probably should have written this in the page's talk page, but I didn't think anybody would question the notability. I have done so now, with roughly the same text as above.
RoyLeban (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you were interested in ambigrams, you would probably know about the ambigramblog. It's one of several devoted to ambigrams. It's not obscure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyLeban (talk • contribs) 02:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If for no other reason, they are notable because they are the first company to provide customized ambigram products, with computer-generated ambigrams." That may make them notable to you, but that's a far cry from being notable for Wikipedia. And knowing about ambigramblog means it's not obscure to you, but by real world measures (the ones Wikipedia uses), it sure is. DreamGuy (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:WEB. --fvw* 02:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I could find not a single reference that meets the criteria in WP:N. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I agree -- if you know nothing about ambigrams, this company isn't notable in the least. But, most of what's on wikipedia isn't notable to most people in the world. This is one of the things that drives me crazy about Wikipedia -- people who know nothing about a particular subject making decisions.

Look here: http://relationary.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/ambigrams/: "The most awesome piece of name ambigram software is at Ambrigram.com’s Flipscript Designer"

Nikita Prokhorov (ambigramblog blogger) wrote "I have to be honest with you: after seeing some of the previous ambigram generators, I thought that they do a horrible job and were completely useless. After seeing Glyphusion at work, and seeing what it can do, my outlook changed, at least from the aesthetic standpoint. I think that Glyphusion does a great job of generating ambigrams that are ahead of any previous efforts by leaps and bounds. I also thought that ambigram generators (not yours specifically, but any previous versions as well) are just computer programs that create ambigrams purely from code. After interviewing you and learning more about the work that went into Glyphusion, I have a different opinion about your ambigram generator. I think it is an incredibly difficult project that has taken a lot of time and effort from multiple people to develop, and it definitely deserves recognition from the ambigram community." (http://ambigrams.flipscript.com/guest-interview-nikita/)

In a comment on that page, Scott Kim wrote "Wonderful to hear about Glyphusion....". So, one of the pioneers of ambigrams is not only following the company, he's comment on an interview on their blog. Hmmm, seems notable to me.

Another interesting thing: competitors that make fixed ambigram products (not customizable) have started putting the word "flipscript" on their web pages so they're findable if you google for "flipscript".

If all this isn't enough for you, then no page on Wikipedia is safe.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, you might ask why have a page on FlipScript rather than Glyphusion. The companies are apparently owned by the same people (at least two people in common). FlipScript is the public company, while Glyphusion is the behind-the-scenes technology company. Therefore, FlipScript is both more notable and more interesting. If/when Glyphusion has hundreds of licensees (they have 4 now, including FlipScript and Mark Palmer's tattoo company), they might be worthy of a Wikipedia entry of their own.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is one of the things that drives me crazy about Wikipedia -- people who know nothing about a particular subject making decisions." Me too, in fact... Except the problem with your argument is that I do know about ambigrams, am a member of the National Puzzler's League, etc. This article doesn't belong on Wikipedia as it has no real world notability, not within normal standards or even in the world of puzzles. It's essentially just advertising for a small, obscure site selling stuff. DreamGuy (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just advertising - yeah, if I had anything to do with the company, that would be a reasonable argument to make. You know I don't, so it's a crap argument. Being a member of the NPL is not a qualifier to know anything about ambigrams -- ambigrams are not puzzles, are completely unrelated to puzzles, and the NPL usage of the word is unrelated, as it says in this article.
This company is notable because of the technology and because they're the first to have that technology, not because they sell stuff. If you think there should be no pages about sites selling stuff, go question the Zazzle page (and many others). RoyLeban (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier on, you said, "Zazzle's page is about the same size, with about the same level of content." Well, Zazzle has something FlipScript doesn't: references. It really doesn't help merely to SAY they're notable. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If FlipScript had coverage by Business Week and ZDNet, as Zazzle has had, then this wouldn't even be a question. But the best it has is some unknown blog and other things not even close to showing notability. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown blog -- that's a judgment call and you're saying your judgment is better than mine. I respectfully disagree. There are probably hundreds of thousands of pages on wikipedia whose only references are things that I've never heard of, but that doesn't mean we should delete all those pages.
It's pretty obvious what the opinions are of the people who have commented already, but it would be nice if other people weighed in. RoyLeban (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on the subject of ambigrams, but doing some quick searches seems to indicate that this service is quite notable (whether calculating by impact on the space, or total number of ambigram designs possible). However, if the consensus should bear out that the service is unworthy of inclusion, by all means, it should be deleted. Let's improve the house, not tear it down.

Since the article is very new, Wikipedia guidelines state that the article should be given time to develop before being deleted, especially if there is no consensus for the decision to delete (see "Don't Demolish the House While it is Still Being Built"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built. Don't forget that the spirit of Wikipedia is "sharing knowledge". 12.29.227.219 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just learned about this. I think it is notable but the article needs a lot of work -- not very well written -- should have more about the tech. There are lots of sites that sell things. House essay is great -- hadn't seen that before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.51.92 (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough reliable sources. Reads like spam. Fails WP:N and WP:WEB. Themfromspace (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themfromspace, I gotta ask: How is Delaware and Hudson Canal Museum, that you just created, more notable? It is a tiny museum in a tiny town (population 627). It seems notability is in the eye of the beholder.
I do agree with comments above that the article could be written better. I used the Zazzle article as a template and that probably wasn't a good idea. I like the House analogy. If this reads like spam or marketing speak, it's because I didn't do any OR -- I took what I could find, which pretty much came from the company's web site. Somebody (not necessarily me) should probably look at the Glyphusion site for more information.
RoyLeban (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article to lead with the technology, which is what makes them notable. Hopefully it no longer reads like spam. Note that I did not create EL's for the three other licensees. WP:WEB is irrelevant. I think they fit WP:N. I'll readily admit that I don't know if a tiny museum in a tiny town is notable, and one mention in an obscure publication doesn't make them notable, but I trust people who know more about the subject than I do. In this case, I'm suggesting that maybe you trust me and let me stop wasting my time on this.

Joke alert: Yeah, I know the New York Times isn't obscure. It's a joke. But obscurity is also in the eye of the beholder. One mention by one person in one travel column six years ago hardly makes it a world-famous museum. When you figure out why that's notable, please apply the same rule here.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 new article by User:Noah Salzman seems to be acceptable; I'll merge the history into the article in just a moment Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focal plane array testing[edit]

Focal plane array testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not an article, not notable. seresin ( ¡? )  01:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and boldly simplify down to a couple paragraphs (I volunteer). If you have any interest in high tech weaponry — and, by Jove, you should — then you have an interest in their guidance and image sensing systems. Yes, this subject is highly technical, and perhaps only interesting to Defense contractors, but a google books/journals search pops up all sorts of references. The only other option I see is merging into Focal plane array. —Noah 06:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not an article more an apparent brain-dump. --AlisonW (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It wasn't a brain dump, the author simply copy/pasted from some dense gov't publication. Per my "volunteer" comment above I have created a simplified stub version of this article here: User:Noah_Salzman/Focal_plane_array_testing. It is just a start, but hopefully it will provide those seeking deletion an alternative outcome. —Noah 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace. I've asked Noah Salzman to improve on their definition in the lead, and there's probably other little fixes possible, but using this article instead of what's there now should deal with the current copy/paste issue. - Mgm|(talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me know if the current lead works — I just changed it. I'm looking for "good enough" at this particular juncture. :-) —Noah 01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see the change Fg2 (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my sub-page? I was a bit obtuse as to which... I meant mine. —Noah 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks Fg2 (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Makerere University. MBisanz talk 02:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumumba Hall[edit]

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

While a University is notable, an individual hall of residence within a University is not normally notable. No claim of separate notability is made and no independent references are given which would prove notablity. Basic details about the hall should be included in the University's article but there is no need for it to have its own article. Prod tag was mangled by the author. Not sure if it was his intention to contest the Prod or if he did it by accident. No reason to assume it was malicious. Sending it to AfD to be on the safe side. DanielRigal (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources added confirmed confirmed his membership in several notable bands, and collectively showed his own (rather weak) notability. Good enough. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Matejka[edit]

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

No notability. Being a member of two bands doesn't warrant inherent notability by any means. No sources exist either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hot Apple Pie's article already says that Sparky left for Skynyrd, and Skynyrd's article says Sparky used to be in Hot Apple Pie. That's all there is to say about him, nothing will be lost if the article's gone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:15, 5 January 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) 01:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -Yupik (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the rationale put forward by the nom. Keep, with the additions from Paul Erik  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Guitarist in Lynard Skynard? This is a no-brainer. Mark it as a stub. RoyLeban (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Lynyrd Skynard. The 2007- lineup of the band has continuity with, but is not the same as, the 1970s lineup. This guy has not achieved notability outside of that band. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Multiple sources exist. I've added a few just now. He has received non-trivial mentions in the press for his work with four different bands (at least), so redirecting to one of those bands is not satisfactory, in my view, and according to AfD precedents when dealing with a member of several notable bands. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pree. JBsupreme (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After Paul Erik's changes it seems like a reasonable stub at least. --Delirium (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Paul Erik saves the day (again). Passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan King[edit]

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

Was an expired WP:PROD. After deletion User:Leaflord222 came to my talk page and asked me to restore it (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&oldid=262053157#new_references_added_before_deletion_of_page_for_Donovan_King and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&oldid=262053157#re:_Donovan_King_article_deletion). — Aitias // discussion 07:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Donovan King is the founder of Optative Theatrical Laboratories and the conceptualizer and co-founder of the Infringement Festival which began in Montreal and has since spread to several cities. Mr King has been the subject of numerous news articles, radio and TV reports and appeared in academic papers dealing with the 400th anniversary celebrations of Canada's first play, Lescarbot's Theatre of Neptune in New France and King's counter-performance Sinking Neptune. The article was sparse and I added some of these media reports as references. Leaflord222 (talk) 13:33, 5 January 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) 01:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MidPhase[edit]

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

Not notable Treedel (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recommend Speedy Close. User is FAR too new to nominate an article for deletion. And Keep; this is a notable company in real life and the article can be improved to pass WP:N. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If the article is revised to meet WP:N and WP:NOR, I would change my position That said, I must have misunderstood the deletion process. I thought it was based solely on the merits of the article, and not on how cool the person who nominated it was.

      Because this is the first action I am taking as a -registered- user, I do not expect my opinion to be weighed as heavily when it is determined what the consensus was. However, the fact that I am the one who nominated the article is not related to the discussion as to the merits of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treedel (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Any registered user, however new, can nominate an article for deletion. Saying that the nominator is FAR too new has no more bearing on this deletion debate than saying that Mister Alcohol's signature is FAR too big. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if kept this really should be a redirect to "UK-2 Group (web host)" or something like that. —Noah 08:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG. No secondary sources included in article or availble on google search. Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 9 January 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) 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since no sources really discuss this company at all; what can be found is all related to the buy-out signaled by Noah. A redirect, then, is the most I would support. BTW, nominator could give a bit more detail on the purported non-notability ;) Drmies (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with article on UK-2, or rename to UK-2 and mark as a stub. Don't delete. RoyLeban (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7). — Aitias // discussion 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob P[edit]

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

Not an encyclopedia article; not notable Church of emacs (Talk) 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maestro (Koma + Bones Remixes)[edit]

Maestro (Koma + Bones Remixes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost no content. Church of emacs (Talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia Park International High School[edit]

Banksia Park International High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability. Unclear notability since September 2007. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: WP:N, a quick search in Google News: High School was one of six SA schools officially recognized for its international accreditation.."--Jmundo (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep nomination is flawed, for three reasons. First: Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Nominator has not shown that he looked for sources first before putting the article up for deletion.
    Second: Jimmy Wales said:
    "if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accommodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world.
    Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website.
    Then I think people should relax and accommodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do." (Partial solution to rampant deletionism, WikiEN-l, Jimmy Wales)
    Third: Precedence/consensus shows that most high schools are being kept.
    This article "isn't hurting anything" nominator "should relax and accommodate" this page. travb (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under your silly suggestions, no high school would be deleted. The first point doesn't mean the nominator has to look for sources. The third point only says that high schools usually end up being kept (some misguided editors think this means all articles on high schools should be kept. I've seen countless editors cite that as their only reason for voting Keep). The second point is just Jimbo's opinion, not guideline or policy. TJ Spyke 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved response to talk page. travb (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep because high schools are noteable if they have won awards. It has won awards. See User:Jmundo's entry above. K50 Dude ROCKS! 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the international recognition identified. Not all high schools are notable, but this one is. StarM 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is notable per Jmundo above. Matt (Talk) 10:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The results of those news stories are hidden behind pay walls. Are you sure that these are all articles about the school as required to meet WP:ORG? If so, why not add this material to the article? Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I did a quick web search on Google and found a couple of free sources that I cited in the WP article. From the Google News results, it looks like there's a whole lot more out there. --Orlady (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by virtue of its international accreditation and awards. I have further expanded the sources. TerriersFan (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Arline[edit]

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

He did not show up for the Chargers 2007 training camp, and since then has not been on a team, a practice squad or anything. Iamawesome800 00:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Appears Arline is on the {{San Diego Chargers roster}}. He was also notable enough to create an article initially. Notability is not temporary, per WP:N#TEMP. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on WP:ATHLETE you actually have to play professionally. It is not our place to predict that he may some day actually play. Since he hasn't played professionally yet, merely being on a roster does not appear sufficient for notability. No other establishments of notability in the article that I could see either. -Verdatum (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First voter (keep) is incorrect. Article should never have been created in the first place and Arline has never been notable. He was a non-notable college player that signed with San Diego as an undrafted free agent and never showed up to camp nearly two years ago. He's only on the Chargers' roster because, since he signed a contract, he's under their control if he were to ever pursue an NFL career. But it appears he has decided not to and to date has never done anything at the professional level to gain notability here.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nankali-post system[edit]

Nankali-post system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was an expired WP:PROD, however there were objections against a deletion at the talk page. — Aitias // discussion 00:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources were located, and there was a strong push towards the end of the discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stafylas[edit]

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

The article suggests that he may be notable, but provides no sources to back it up. I can't find anything under any of the spelling variations of his name, or the Greek spelling. I don't speak Greek though, so it could be a language barrier; happy to withdraw nomination if so. Tagged for notability since June 2007; twice prodded. Jfire (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I moved the page to Michales Staphylas which is the Library of Congress Romanization of the name, and where 5 of his books are listed in their catalog. WorldCat shows 22 books [Michales Staphylas] but not many US library holdings. It's clear from that page he has published a number of bios of major Greek literary figures. DGG (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He does seem to be mildly notable, but sources on his life that would allow a verifiable biography to be written also seem hard to come by. The official website of his village has a small bio blurb, which I guess is better than nothing. --Delirium (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I suspect that User:C.zacharakis, the creator of this article, is the owner of that website, as he/she has created articles for most of the figures listed there, each with a link back to the site. E.g. Markos Giolias, Zacharias Papantoniou, etc. Jfire (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The souces required to verify notability seem to be lacking. --Stormbay (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete notability is possible but not established, and the article is so short and devoid of valuable content it might very well be best to start from scratch at a future point when references are found. Skomorokh 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability. And the web site reference is in Greek which means one can't WP:V. A google search only shows that he is an author. not a major best selling author, I don't think. --Artene50 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Library of Congress is one of the largest libraries in the world, that they hold his books doesn't make him notable. I'm open to recreation if sources can be found, but as it is there just isn't evidence of notability here. Terraxos (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*delete lack of notability. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:04, 10 January 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 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per User:DGG and Delerium. There are 5 books listed in the Library of Congress for this author, I venture to guess that not a single delete editor knows Greek, so it is probably difficult to check sources in greek.travb (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith and avoid name-calling in AFDs. MuZemike 23:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The comment only said it's unlikely any of the editors commenting so far is unlikely to have been able to read relevant sources. It draws into questions people's ability to accurately assess the article based on a good reason, but I'm not seeing any name-calling. - Mgm|(talk) 01:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Notability established by the translated version of the other Wikipedia article. --Jmundo (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails basic notabillity requirements. The inclusion of two identical sources did not assert notability. seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable Current[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable source that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 01:39, 5 January 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, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both the sources added by Drmies are reproductions of the same AP article. Here are few more reproductions ([53], [54], [55]). Moreover, the news article focuses on Muslim hip-hop and includes only a mention of this record label. This coverage does not justify inclusion under WP:CORP. LeaveSleaves 19:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: insufficient reliable 3rd party sources WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo Street Hockey League[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey league that I nominated for speedy deletion under G11, but the tag was removed by an user with no contributions outside this article, I still feel that the article is largely a promotional piece and should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - possible speedy, as there seems to be very little claim to notability here, let alone evidence of it. Terraxos (talk) 03:16, 9 January 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, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 It Dies Today. MBisanz talk 02:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Angels Whisper Your Name[edit]

Let the Angels Whisper Your Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable demo album. Demo albums must pass WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. This one does not. There are no sources nor citations. It was not released on a notable label either. (self released) Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 04:32, 5 January 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, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeMarsh Studios[edit]

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

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:38, 5 January 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, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Assemblies of Yahweh. MBisanz talk 02:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sacred Name Broadcaster[edit]

The Sacred Name Broadcaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertorial coatrack for the beliefs of a religious group that has no reliable secondary sources to establish notability or to enable any independent verification of its claims Bali ultimate (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The sources don't seem to indicate more than that the magazine is published. There doesn't seem to be any sources about the magazine's notability separate from the Assemblies of Yahweh. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As nom have no opposition to *redirectBali ultimate (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Assemblies of Yahweh. Fails WP:BK. All references in secondary sources are just passing references of the type, "Assemblies of Yahweh also started publishing The sacred name broadcaster in 1967". Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 9 January 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, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 characters from the Dark Tower series. MBisanz talk 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oy (Dark Tower)[edit]

Oy (Dark Tower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-encyclopedic. No References. Padillah (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would caution people to not just take this person at his word that those links show books establishing notability for a Wikiepdia article about Oy separate from the Dark Tower series. One is about the entire Dark Tower series (not establishing any individual notability for Oy), one is for Stephen King in general (even less specific), one is for fantasy after Tolkien (even less specific) and one is about Tolkien's works (not even the same topic at all!). There is nothing to indicate that Oy himself deserves an article. This line of argument would mean tht ANY character listed in any of those books deserves his own article, which is clearly unworkable. DreamGuy (talk) 01:37, 10 January 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, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep nomination is flawed. Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Nominator has not shown that he looked for sources first before putting the article up for deletion. User:Abecedare showed there where sources for this article with a one minute search of google books.travb (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of characters from the Dark Tower series. The character's notability isn't seperate from that of the book series he is from. Themfromspace (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect with anything notable not already on another article merged over. I am getting rather disappointed by number of people voting on AFDs who seem to thinking that finding any reliable source mentioning anything somehow means whatever that thing is deserves a Wikipedia article on its own. That's not at all how things work here, and I don't get where so many people came up with the idea that it was. Yes, there are several sources talking about this character, but they do so only in the context of topics that already have Wikipedia articles of their own. There's no reason this character should be considered notable separate from the book series, and the notability of the series doesn't mean the character itself is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Based upon Inclusionist's comments (and, indeed, username), I think this person just doesn't get it, and specifically tries not to understand our policies to rationalize keep votes on things that clearly do not qualify. DreamGuy (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when is separate notability required to split an article out from the main article in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE? The main article (List of characters from the Dark Tower series) is too long, so this article is presented independently. The notability of this character only exists because of the notability of the books the character appears in, yes. But this is true for all fictional characters. If it wasn't for the books they appeared in, we would never even have heard of them. Are you arguing that we shouldn't have any fictional character articles at all? JulesH (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The WP:AVOIDSPLIT section of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE states that articles that are split off must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as being notable independant of the parent topic. Themfromspace (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but to suggest that this must be done using sources that aren't talking about the parent topic is frankly absurd. Sources for an article can quite happily be within larger works that discuss the topic of the parent article. Notability must be shown, yes, but to require notability as a distinct concept is too extreme, and would lead to deletion of very large chunk of summary style articles. JulesH (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of characters from the Dark Tower series. He can be discussed there. While he's in a number of Dark Tower books, he's not substantively notable outside the series/world of Stephen King. And yes, I say that as a huge SK fan. StarM 04:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, since there really is no independent notability here. And I say this as a huge Herman Melville fan! Drmies (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability as a major character within a major complex work by a major author is sufficient to justify an article. Appropriate use of summary style. At the extreme, one could use the concept of no separate notability to put all of SK's characters and books in one article, because thy wouldn't have been notable if he had not written them, & they have no independent existence outside the novels. DGG (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup — the sources seem to establish notability, even though the article could use cleanup and referencing. MuZemike 23:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of characters from the Dark Tower series as above, no siginificance outside the books to merit a stand-alone article. - fchd (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_January_10&oldid=1081071513"