Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 14 January 16 >

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 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Manzai Comics[edit]

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

No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licensed for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. It is suspected that a representative of the publishing company originally created the article. Farix (Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unnotable manga series with no significant coverage in reliable-third party sources, only minor mentions of its pending release. Even ANN's listing for it is little more than part of the basics, with a lot of details missing. Completely fails WP:BK and WP:N. Known creation of confirmed Aurora socks using the site for self-promotion (5 or 6 blocked so far). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find no real coverage in English. No sign it meets any other criteria of WP:BK. No prejudice against recreation if, after it comes out, reviewers note it and so make it notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 16 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be Honest![edit]

Be Honest! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licensed for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. It is suspected that a representative of the publishing company originally created the article. Farix (Talk) 23:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, fails WP:BK, with no significant coverage in reliable third party sources beyond one or two publication announcements. As the English release won't even be published until September 2009, its highly unlikely any notability will be established before then. This is one of many bad stub creations of confirmed Aurora socks using the site for self-promotion (5 or 6 blocked so far), including their having copy/pasted their promo materials into the articles. No prejudice against recreation after its published and if it receives actual coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it may be possible there are WP:RS for this in Japanese, I came up with absolutely bupkis in English, and no sign it meets any other criteria of WP:BK. No prejudice against recreation if, once the English edition is out, reviews take note. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed every criterion even the debated 6th, may come again if reliable sources & references untarnished by the publisher propaganda marketing are provided. --KrebMarkt 22:36, 19 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenly Body[edit]

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

No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licensed for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. It is suspected that a representative of the publishing company originally created the article. Farix (Talk) 23:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, fails WP:BK, with no significant coverage in reliable third party sources or any reviews at all, despite having been released back in August. Known creation of confirmed Aurora socks using the site for self-promotion (5 or 6 blocked so far). No prejudice against recreation if it ever actually does receive any reviews. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searches found no real coverage in English (and Japanese is beyond my ken). No sign it meets any other criteria of WP:BK. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above I'm running out of words (fourth afd in row). Please publisher do your homework by learning the basic rules of WP:N because we are doing ours by respecting your IP.--KrebMarkt 22:41, 19 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 01:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hanky Panky (manga)[edit]

Hanky Panky (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licensed for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. It is suspected that a representative of the publishing company originally created the article. Farix (Talk) 23:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, fails WP:BK, with no significant coverage in reliable third party sources beyond one or two publication announcements. Has not been reviewed by any reliable source either, though it was released in November. This is one of many bad stub creations of confirmed Aurora socks using the site for self-promotion (5 or 6 blocked so far), including their having copy/pasted their promo materials into the articles. No prejudice against recreation if it ever actually does receive any reviews and notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There may be WP:RS for this in Japanese, but I can't search in that language, and I found nuttin' in English aside from press releases. No sign it meets any other criteria of WP:BK. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for sources in your own language is a good idea, but I think commissioning opinions from people who can read Japanese (like those in the Japan wikiproject) should be done to confirm beyond a doubt that this should be deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 11:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fair number of Japanese readers involved in Anime and Manga WikiProject, which is under the Japan WikiProject's aegis. A good number of them even monitor this deletion sort. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add, all of the Aurora Publishing related articles have been under scrutiny for a while after it came to light that representatives of the publishing company were using Wikipedia as an advertising platform. WikiProject Anime and manga reviewed each of the articles before sending the problems ones to AfD. --Farix (Talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nominator. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/13916.html list the sales figure of Hanky Panky during Novermber of 2008. It is just under Batman for that month. I see other notable comics and manga listed not that much higher up. Odd. I always thought comics sold better than that. Normally I'd think only four hundred copies sold did not make it notable, but then I see how few copies of Batman, various X-men series, and whatnot sell, and compared to them, it isn't that bad at all. Am I misreading something here? Dream Focus (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other then the fact that sales figures and rankings have nothing to do with notability and that the mention in that ICv2 article is trivial in accordance with WP:NOTE. --Farix (Talk) 14:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. All have been written about it. I may add that WP:Anime doesn't have as a purpose to the mirror of every manga publisher catalog nor to be fanboys or fangirls wikia replica. Save WP some bandwidth & money. --KrebMarkt 20:33, 19 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 03:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makhachkala Il-76 collision[edit]

Makhachkala Il-76 collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aviation accidents are common occurrences and there is nothing extraordinary or notable about this particular event. – Zntrip 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Mandsford (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this article as I believe 5 people dead is notable enough. Besides, the reason for the collision is pretty unusual, too. Today's Flight 1549 crash has no fatalities at all, however nobody thinks of deleting it. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk)
  • Delete - Per nom, no asserted notability, nor from sources. Relatively minor event, the deaths notwithstanding. Also, lack of deaths in a water landing is part of what makes that incident notable - very rare for that many to survive with no fatalities. - BillCJ (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep had this happened in the US or Europe there would be no question that this would be kept. WP:BIAS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs more references, but the fact that 1549 was notable because of the water landing is not a valid refutation. Check out any other year for airplane disasters on Wikipedia and you will see articles on airplane crashes ranging from non-water landing and otherwise non-notable deathless disasters to comparable ones of several deaths like this: Coney_Island_plane_crash. -Kez (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out, I've added some more English-language references from IHT and RIA Novosti. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk)

*Neutral I'm not sure this meets WP:AIRCRASH as military aircraft are involved. It may be notable under the involves unusual circumstances criteria but I cannot be sure one way or the other. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you read that this collision involved a water landing or a scheduled flight? This article isn't about Flight 1549 that landed in the Hudson River. I look at this as a military accident, entitled to no greater treatment than Wikipedia accords the deaths of five other persons serving their country. If five soldiers die in a battle in Afghanistan today, nobody will be writing an article about it. Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unfortunately the reason given for deletion is down to personal preference. I would in fact say that aviation accidents are not common, especially ones where 2 planes collide and people die. Also the article could do with some pictures, there shit loads on Ilyushin Il-76 page. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets AIRCRASH, most particularly in the unusual circumstances. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep due to the fact the unusual circumstances of a collision, the deaths of five people and the destruction of two large aircraft there is an easy pass of the WP:AIRCRASH guidline. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As has been said above there would be no question of deleting this if it had happened in the USA or the UK, and in this instance I don't see why the fact that the accident concerned military aircraft should make it any less notable than a similar accident involving civilian aircraft. These were not combat aircraft in a war zone, but passenger flights. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fatal aviation accidents should get articles; they are properly considered notable because of the public interest leading to press coverage.
  • Keep. KNewman (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changed from Neutral above) The section of WP:AIRCRASH that applies to this article (a ground collision between two military aircraft) is:-

Military aircraft:

    • Accidents or incidents to military aircraft (as opposed to civilian aircraft) are not in the purview of this discussion.
    • Loss-of-life is not necessarily a valid criteria (due to the nature of military aviation, training crashes resulting in loss of life are not typically notable).
    • It is notable if there are unusual circumstances involved
    • It occurs in the civilian world and causes civilian casualties.
    • It is the first crash of a particular type of aircraft.

Ground collisions are not that unusual. Both aircraft were military, no civilian loss of life occurred. It was not the first crash of the IL-76. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disclaimer for loss of life refers to training crashes; this was not a training crash. It should really rule out most/all crashes resulting from combat as well, but that is not really relevant here, more a passing thought. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:33, 17 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 03:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Logan Airport runway incursion[edit]

2005 Logan Airport runway incursion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#NEWS - A runway incursion happens when two airplanes become close to each other on the runway. Both of the airplanes took off hitting each other and there weren't even any injuries or damage. Also, runway incursions happen all the time. I don't see how this one is more notable than most incursions. We need to draw the line somewhere. If this one is kept, what's next? Near car accidents? Near train collisions? etc. Wikipedia is not a news sources, it isn't supposed to have every news story that an editor decides to write about.Tavix (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, the event is given the notice it requires on a very small article on the award, and any other mention can happen in the Logan article. I am a little put off that this happened at my most travelled through airport, though! SGGH speak! 23:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Although I frown on the aviation geekery where someone creates an article every time there's an incident, this was a situation where a Tenerife type collision was avoided because of the quick action of the USAir pilot, who realized the tower's mistake as his jet was accelerating down the runway for takeoff -- at 167 miles per hour no less, according to the Boston Globe investigative report [1]; and he stopped about 60 yards from the other jet, which was going 198 mph. There's a good reason that the two airplanes took off without hitting each other. If you want to draw the line, draw it at those articles where the risk and the consequences were low, such as those "the-passengers-used-the-slides" incidents. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply "Where the consequences were low". On a runway incursions, there are barely any consquences. No injuries, deaths, damage, etc., just a near miss. Sure it had to be investigated because the ATC didn't do their job, but that for WikiNews, not an encyclopedia. Tavix (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it odd that this is in some people's view more notable than the fatal article above. Go figure. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I always try to avoid making ad hominem comments in discussions, but I must make an exception here and agree that by any objective standard it's incomprehensible that an editor could want to delete the article on the fatal crash in Russia but to keep this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of these aircraft accidents ought to be chronicled here on Wikipedia for research and investigation.Critical Chris (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia is not a database of every event that happens in history, it's an encyclopedia of notable events, people, places, etc. I kind of favor the 'keep' side since it does seem to have been a very serious incident that was avoided. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where only sensationalist incidents and accidents are reported but also a place where notable misses like this that did result in warnings and changes as well as commendations are noted. That being said, the article's seriously lacking reliable sources with the exception of a couple of investigative reports, so it's questionable how the notability of the incident is actually proven in the article. NcSchu(Talk) 14:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The ol' fictional WP:MUST BE DEATHS policy. This was a very serious incident. It's not me saying that but the Air Line Pilots Association, International.[2] They gave the US Airways captain the "Superior Airmanship Award" as well as calling it a "very serious incident".--Oakshade (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Please re-read my nomination, I did not say there had to be deaths to make it notable. I am saying that it isn't suitable for Wikipedia as it is a news story. Tavix (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your response to Mandsford read "No injuries, deaths, damage, etc." --Oakshade (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which was just an example because he mentioned the consequences of the "incident". I did not refer to no deaths as my policy for deletion. My policy for deletion is WP:NOT#NEWS. Tavix (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back on it, my choice of words was poor. In saying "consequences", I meant the potential damage rather than actual damage. In the case of one plane almost bumping into another as they're waiting for takeoff, the chances of an accident and the potential damage would both be low; in the case of a pilot avoiding a the collision of two jets that are both accelerating to the same intersection, the chances of a collision would be high and the potential damages would be high. I agree with Tavix that most of these Wikipedia articles about an NTSB incident should be deleted, but I submit that there are some instances where a near disaster would qualify -- the factors being how close one came to disaster and how bad the disaster would have been. Mandsford (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, thanks for the clarification, that assessment makes a lot more sense. I can see where your coming from with that, but I'm looking at it from a different angle where if no actual damage took place, I don't see a reason for a Wikipedia article. Tavix (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep near disasters can also have notable consequences and be notable - we have an article, but I can't put my finger on it about the plane that ran out of fuel but landed safely on Tenerife or Azores or somewhere thereabouts. No one died; notable anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per a number of comments made here pointing to the serious and rare risk of collision and per multiple previous AfDs (I will link to some later, but am short of time ATM, although this article itself survived once before on no consensus at time when far less was getting past AfD than now). In particular, while incursions are common, incursions where two aircraft try to take off into each other are pretty rare. Most involve something crossing the runway miles away, a takeoff aborted in good time to avoid a baggage train, something like that. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources are satisfactory to allow creation of an article. WilyD 12:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ineffective delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see a lot of opinions in this discussion but no arguments based on the existence or non-existence of significant coverage by reliable sources, apart from news coverage in the immediate aftermath of the incident. It would be useful if those who want to keep this could provide such sources, and those who want to delete could indicate where they have looked for sources and been unable to find them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's what all of us are planning to do this weekend. Mandsford (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is an amazing story for anyone who remembers the Tenerife disaster in 1977. It's also an interesting article from the point of view of aviation safety and heroism. So what that it only has two sources; one of them is the NTSB report and that is a very reliable reference. In any case two sources is two more than many other articles have. Greg Kuperberg (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a four year old newspaper. KleenupKrew (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These happen all of the time. What exactly makes this one notable, encyclopedic and not simply a news item? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would encourage anyone voting "keep" or "delete" to take a moment to read the article. Mandsford (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've done that, and can't see anything in it to persuade me either way - there are no secondary sources cited giving substantial coverage, which would be needed for a "keep", but I accept that there is a fair chance that such sources exist, so I'm not going to say "delete". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While runway incursions are "common", and often are featured in the news media, that does not make this any less noteworthy. This was a very severe incident, and certainly deserves to be documented as such. --KPWM_Spotter (talk) 19:12, 19 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Alley[edit]

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

Non-notable cartoon anthology program on Turner Classic Movies. A Google Search for "'Cartoon Alley' TCM" returns only 785 results, virtually all of which are things such as episode listings on TCM's website and discussions on animation-related forums; searches using Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar return absolutely no results whatsoever. As such, there is no evidence of reliable sources that can establish notability. Unscented (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Series broadcast on national networks are inherently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There is no reason why this article should be deleted. The information presented in the article is accurate, and the presence of an episode listing adds a ton of value to the article. The sources mentioned are useful for compiling the episode listing, and since it is a TV series that is catered towards a small market of people who love classic animation, it should not be too much of a surprise if a search on Google only brings 785 results. I don't see any reason why this article should be up for deletion. --S275ironman (talk) 05:50, 19 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 01:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rule the Rail![edit]

Rule the Rail! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Unreferenced, insufficient notability —Snigbrook 22:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notability at all. Suspected spam.--Darius (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rail transportation is currently making a comeback in the US.Critical Chris (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — Bull****!!!! We Americans are proud of our huge mechanical beasts in which we populate to the brim our highways and biways and turnpikes with! We especially cherish the best invention God has given us — the sport utility vehicle and its 14 MPG goodness! Why, other countries are just jealous that we drive six blocks as compared to the out-of-date bussing or biking to and from work every day! God bless the automobile! Note: that was all humongous sarcasm and intended as sarcastic humor. Besides, with 12 inches of snow down, 3 inches of ice, and temps of -20° F (-45° F wind chill), no car or bus is going anywhere BWA HA HA HA!!!!! MuZemike 01:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I could not find any reliable secondary sources establishing notability, as shown by a Google search I have done here or by a Yahoo! search here. MuZemike 01:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cool, but not notable. SharkD (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparent advertising. If the company that released it is still at redlink at this point, the game probably isn't notable either. KleenupKrew (talk) 05:09, 19 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 01:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaicans in Switzerland[edit]

Jamaicans in Switzerland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Small group of people with no assertion of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Unnotable intersection of ethic groups that number about 800 people. Tavix (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Let some other editors post ethnographic and population data about Jamaican immigrants there and their cultural influence before you write them off as not notable. The overall population of Switzerland itself is small so, "small" is all relative here.Critical Chris (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply "Small" is relative as a population group compared to the current human population. Remember that the ethnic groups don't just apply to Switzerland but to the whole world. That would mean this "group" is only about 800/7,000,000,000 of the human population. That is definitely a small number indeed Tavix (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Can you prove this or do you just think that there are sources? Tavix (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an ethnic group, it's an intersection of a nationality and a country of residence. There is nothing to establish the notability of this intersection in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- This group has an active association in Switzerland, 1. I agree with WillyD, all immigrants are inherently notable. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 800 / 7,593,500 = 0.0001053. As subtrivial a topic as it gets. KleenupKrew (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could be covered by a sentence in the Jamaica article noting that a community of 800 Jamaicans now live in Switzerland. Racepacket (talk) 09:09, 19 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 03:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of wiki farms[edit]

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

This is an article which compares features drawn directly in the main from primary sources to create a novel comparison of wiki farms, most of which do not (and will never) have entries due to isses with notability. It's not a navigaitonal list or category, it's a reviewer's guide, something outwith the remit of Wikipedia, being a kind of "howto". Guy (Help!) 21:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and perhaps change the name to "List of wiki farms". I am going to treat this article as a standalone list, and as so it covers a notable subject, is fairly well-sourced, provides information in the form of comparison that can't be found in the individual articles, and is well-kept and spam free. Themfromspace (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We must have hundreds of such pages on WP, and personally I find them very useful (hence my visit to the page, as I wanted to learn about different wiki farms). The content is well within the mission of the project. The fact that some individual entries are "non-notable" is not a reason to delete all of them; indeed, it's perfectly appropriate that examples of low notability are entered in a list - these are not complete articles on "non-notable" entries. Walkerma (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must we? Where are they? Listing non-notable topics is the job of a directory, not Wikipedia, see WP:LINKFARM. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sound idea, in my view. A good thing for someone to do somewhere, just not here. And let us indeed render them all assistance in getting it to the right place, wherever that is. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article, while having a short several paragraph introduction, is mostly a list. It is notable, and could easily be improved. Ninja Wizard (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's needed is an article telling us what a wiki farm is. The list and/or comparison is really more like a directory, not WP's mission. Besides it will constantly change and need to be updated as new ones appear or old ones disappear. May I make another comment? Thanks. I have nothing against wiki farms. However, I have noticed that sites which promote some "bricks and morter" company are often treated with quite a bit of hostility here. Yet this site, whose purpose seems to be to help someone shop for the right wiki farm seems to be okay. I think there is a double standard. Redddogg (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/salvage/rename If we want a comparison article, we should start from scratch with some good sources, which we currently do not have. However, the article could easily be changed into a list of wiki farms without any comparison or other information, though it would be better paired with a separate article on wiki farms, but again this would require finding sources that we currently do not have. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists does not requires notability of each entry in a list. Just the topic of the list. This has all been discussed previously in the last AfD discussion where the final decision was to keep the article. This is the 4th AfD by the way. The first one was this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wiki farms. The goal in most of the AfDs by many of the spam fighters was, and is, to delete most of the article on "notability" grounds. See the previous AfD discussions. See also Talk:Comparison of wiki farms, User:Timeshifter#Many spam fighters support Microsoft and big commercial interests, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free Software#Difficulty of establishing reliable sources for freeware:
Difficulty of establishing reliable sources for freeware. I have commented at WP:RELIABLE talk page on the difficulty of establishing notability when the only sources tend to be forums, newsgroups, personal pages as freeware does not buy advertising and thus does not get reviewed in major periodicals, etc. I feel the guidelines should reflect this and would welcome other comments.Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is referring to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Citations for freeware and shareware and open source software. I don't usually bother anymore with these type of articles because most of the time certain deletionist-oriented spam fighters far outnumber the more regular editors of such an article. So, many of the software-related articles end up only with a short list of software or services of mainly the larger commercial companies, and sometimes the occasional freeware/shareware. So Wikipedia mainly discusses only one side of the software and hosting area: commercial companies. This violates WP:NPOV in my opinion. There are a few article exceptions.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software helps counter this systemic bias. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and its talk page. I left a request for additional input there and at wikibooks:Wikibooks:Reading room/General#Freeware and shareware. There is a similar list there: wikibooks:Starting and Running a Wiki Website/Hosted Wikis. It is a fairly long wiki-farm list, and it links directly to the wiki farms. So it is actually useful. How-to books should try to be useful, and not just academic like much of Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a stand-alone list, that would be list of wiki farms. This is an article which takes primary sources, abstracts the features which we think are significant, and tabulates them. Which fails on two counts: first that the selection and comparison criteria are our arbitrary criteria not ones taken form reliable independent sources, and second that Wikipedia is not supposed to do original research. It is an absolute absurdity to suggest that this article exists to counter systemic bias - in fact, it is here to reinforce systemic bias, by over-documenting a self-referential concept. But your example of assuming bad faith is obviously very persuasive. Not. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In form and function, this is a stand-alone list. Note that Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists states that "the name or title List of _ _ is still preferable to Table of _ _ or Comparison of _ _." I argued above that the list should be renamed and I stand by that per the guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if it seems like I assumed bad faith. I may have overgeneralized about the motivations of the spam fighters commenting in this AfD. For that I apologize. I struck out part of my previous comment referring to current spam fighters. By the way, I also remove the spam I see in external links.
It does not matter to me whether the article is called a list or a comparison. Many lists have columns for features. See Comparison of raster graphics editors, Comparison of Internet forum software, and many more lists and charts.
The systemic bias I am referring to is the bias to skew towards including only larger commercial interests in lists. Thus, inclusion criteria that require notability for all entries should not be used unnecessarily. The list is not yet too long. Please see WP:PAPER.
When it gets too long we can set up more limiting inclusion criteria. Such as a certain Alexa number or higher as suggested on the article talk page by User:Angela, (the Wikimedia Foundation advisory board chair, and founder of Wikia, the most notable of wiki farms).
Another possibility is to consolidate this list with wikibooks:Starting and Running a Wiki Website/Hosted Wikis, and keep the list there. We can leave a more detailed article on wiki farms here with a link to the list there.
From WP:PAPER (emphasis added): "There is a feasible limit for article size that depends on page download size for Wikipedia's dial-up and microbrowser readers and readability considerations for everybody (see Wikipedia:Article size). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles; however, because Wikipedia does not require paper, we can include more information, provide more external links, update more quickly, and so on." --Timeshifter (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never like to see a point of view I agree with argued badly, so I'm gonna clarify my opinion here in an attempt at making a better argument than just WP:PAPER. Split-off articles must also obey our notability guidelines. Just because WP:PAPER allows articles to be split off doesn't mean they can sneak under the radar of the notability guidelines. This article should be kept because is about a notable topic, Wiki-farms, and how they relate to one another. This subject is notable not because I say so or because Blogger Joe says so, but because it has been picked up in multiple independant third-party sources, which are required per WP:N, and the material within the article is somewhat well-referenced and able to be verified. WP:N trumps WP:PAPER anyday of the week, and this article clearly passes the more stringent test of WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no disagreement from me about the notability of the topic. I thought I mentioned that already, though I didn't emphasize that point strongly enough this time obviously. I guess after 4 AfDs I forget that what I already wrote many times before is buried in the previous 3 AfDs. I have little doubt though that the list will remain in some form, or be incorporated into an article just called "Wiki farms." I am more concerned about having a more complete list. I am not trying to "sneak under the radar of the notability guidelines", and that is bad faith on your part. The list topic is notable whether the list is short or long. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above, wiki farm is a notable topic. But a feature comparison of Wiki farms, most of which do not have Wikipedia articles, violates WP:NOT, WP:LINKFARM and in this case mainly WP:NOR as well. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as it pains me to see the content deleted, I must agree that it does not meet our policies. It is mostly a directory, and it violates WP:HOWTO in my mind as well. Given its usefulness, I think finding an appropriate wiki to transwiki it to would be a worthwhile measure, however. seresin ( ¡? )  07:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What policy does it violate? WP:HOWTO redirects to Category:Wikipedia how-to. What about Comparison of raster graphics editors, Comparison of Internet forum software, and many other lists? Do they violate policies? Maybe you mean WP:NOT#HOWTO. This list is not a how-to guide. It does not tell anyone how to edit wiki pages, how to start a site on a wiki farm, or any how-to info.
Thanks for appreciating my idea of finding an appropriate wiki to transwiki this useful list in a more complete form. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the problem is that WP:LISTS is not clear about inclusion criteria for freeware, shareware, free hosting, and other computer-related lists. The wiki farm topic is notable, but there are only a few notable wiki farms. Notable in print media, mainstream media, and the normal places for WP:RS. So I think I will discuss this over time at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free Software, WP:LISTS, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), etc..

Maybe we can get a policy on how many entries can be in a notable computer-related list before inclusion criteria must be implemented, and what those inclusion criteria might be. Otherwise, arbitrary numbers will be used to limit list entries. Many times some very complete well-charted, notable, computer-related lists have been cut down from 30, 40, 50 entries to 10 big commercial software programs, hosts, etc.. An idea might be to limit computer-related lists to 50 separate entries. Comparison of wiki farms has 49 separate entries according to my paste of the list into the freeware NoteTab Light. It can count the lines or paragraphs in a list. I like the idea of using the Alexa number to keep the list under 50 entries. We can't include all wiki farms in the list. I agree with that. On the other hand I don't want nothing but 10 big companies like Wikia that managed to get mainstream media coverage. That would be unfair, and not very useful to readers. I like Wikia, and I am a volunteer admin there, by the way. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:55, 19 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. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ompen[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism. roleplayer 21:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonsense; urban dictionary isn't a reliable source and even if it was, it's a dict def. speedy perhaps? --Blowdart | talk 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a protologism. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [From the talk page:] Because Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. It is unlikely that you will be able to find a single verifiable, reliable source that shows the notability of this as an actual word. Even if it did exist, it would belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. -- roleplayer 21:35, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 03:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Londonistan (term)[edit]

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

Nothing more than a dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF) which I don't see evolving beyond that (Islam in London covers the subject of well, Islam in London). Wiktionary already has an entry (wiktionary:Londonistan) Equendil Talk 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a different article about Islamism in London ... Equendil Talk 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Equendil Talk 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! I've heard this term before in conversation and it may have legs and may be much more than a neologism. Let's see what sources are out there on the name from other editors.Critical Chris (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DICDEF. Just because you have heard of the term doesn't mean it needs an article. Tavix (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in line with Helengrad and other disparaging but notably sourced sobriquets for places. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient sources exist to allow creation of an article. No causes presented for deletion. WilyD 12:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - is not a notable term (except among British neo-nazis) and is simply a WP:DICDEF - Ledenierhomme (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless someone changed the rules when I was not looking, the ground for an AfD is failure to establish notability. Since Londonistan meets notability standards, I seen no grounds for a nomination, much less deletion. There should be no difficulty expanding and improving the article, which does need work. (Perhaps Equendil should read the rules for AfDs before making future nominations.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB: To remove any doubt about WP:notability, I have just added some further material to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps *you* should read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, starting with Wikipedia:Deletion policy and also get some experience of the AfD process before you tell people what the "rules" are and try to sound condescending.

      I invite the closing admin to disregard this "keep" as notability is not the issue here. Equendil Talk 05:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Failure to establish notability is the main ground for deletions in AfDs. If you think there is another ground for deletion that applies to this article, you have not stated it. Why keep it a secret? If there is something in AfD guidelines, that you think is grounds for deletion, please point it out. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You just don't read what other people write do you ? Equendil Talk 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me know when you have an answer to my question. As of now, I see no grounds for deletion that you have stated. The subject is WP:notable, and is not a content (or POV) fork, or a BLP violation. Just why do you want it gone? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Xe is quite right, in that you have not read the discussion. Xyr answer to your question was in the first link given in the nomination. Xe is also quite right about deletion policy. We do not delete articles for failure to "establish notability". That is not deletion policy. We delete articles if the subjects are not notable. (Articles don't have to "establish" anything. At AFD notability is determined.) But that is far from the only reason under deletion policy that we delete things. As Equendil told you, you really should familiarize yourself with what our deletion policy actually is. Uncle G (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, this is not a dictionary article. It appears to be an encyclopaedia article on the perceived tolerance for Islam within the U.K., with an exceedingly non-neutral, and badly chosen, title.

    Of course, the reason for that is Malcolm Schosha's hanging coats on what the article was when it was nominated for deletion, which actually was a dictionary article, which in turn resulted from most of this article being copy-and-paste "moved" to Islamism in London, which yet further in turn is because Misheu suggested a rename on this article's talk page in May 2007, but copied-and-pasted the article instead of actually renaming it, leaving the raw dictionary article content behind, which in final turn is because editors at Talk:Londonistan (term), and indeed as far back as the 2005 discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londonistan thought this a very bad choice of title, that inherently causes a non-neutral article to arise.

    So what we have now are two articles covering the same ground, one of which (this one) by an incredibly poor title, and the other of which would become a GFDL violation if we were to delete this article. I suggest that we go with Misheu's chosen name and (because of the GFDL requirement to preserve history) redirect there. Uncle G (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a very strange article. The relevance of the sections on 2001 and 2005 terrorist attacks escape me, and the context seems to be inherently POV. Islamism in London seems like a better choice of title, and particularly in view of the entangled history of both articles I think a redirect there is acceptable. If not redirected, it should be cleaned up and the references to islamism should be replaced by actual examples of the term being used. A history merge might be appropriate here. --TS 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is an older version of the article restored by Malcolm Schosha, virtually none of it has anything to do with the term "Londonistan" specifically, as far as I can tell, some of it had been copied to Islamism in London and the article was trimmed down to essentially a dictionary definition. Equendil Talk 15:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most certainly a definition of a term - any remaining material can be put back where it belongs Islamism in London ViridaeTalk 20:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is reasonably well written. Precedent already set with Helengrad (vote was to keep), and I must admit I never heard of Helengrad until I read this AfD. The term Londonistan has already been used in a published title by author Melanie Phillips. PS. The argument that because some people find the term offensive therefore it must be deleted, is not a valid reason for deletion, see WP:NOTCENSORED. JamesBurns (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody here offered that "argument" ... Equendil Talk 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"is not a notable term (except among British neo-nazis)" JamesBurns (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent doesn't fly in wikipedia. ViridaeTalk 09:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary: "While pages like What Wikipedia is not play an important role in VfD decisions the body of precedent also plays a crucial role" see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents/Archive. JamesBurns (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who wrote that, but I think it's an overstatement to describe the role of precedent as "crucial". The application of precedent is actively eschewed in most of Wikipedia; at most it's a template that we can choose to adopt or reject as the case seems to merit. --TS 02:38, 20 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 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macroscopic[edit]

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

This article is just a dictionary definition, and there's no real prospect of it becoming anything else. I propose deleting from wikipedia, and adding the content to the Wiktionary definition at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/macroscopic Djr32 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What about the article Microscopic? I don't see why there would need to be an article about one antonym but not the other.Synchronism (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think there's any need to add any of the content into the currently existing wiktionary article. Microscopic should be deleted as well. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perfectly good subject for a longer article. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then how can this be expanded? - Mgm|(talk) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would personally merge microscopic to microscope. Perhaps defining this word would be better be covered there too. - Mgm|(talk) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "stub" is not a criterion for deletion. Seems like it'd be a challenging topic to write for, but one can imagine a great article. WilyD 12:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, the argument for deletion is not "stub"; the argument for deletion is "dictionary definition", as in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (To quote directly from that guideline, 'For example: "supermassive" is an adjective, and doesn't by itself denote an actual subject. Supermassive black hole is an actual subject.') The reason the article is short is because it's a dictionary definition. (It would obviously be silly to expand it with a list of things that are macroscopic in size, even though this could be a very long list!) Djr32 (talk) 10:44, 17 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 19:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of flagship vehicles by manufacturer[edit]

List of flagship vehicles by manufacturer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research. "Flagship" is a poorly defined marketing term. Even at the top of the article, it says "These vehicles are usually the most expensive ".."the Ford Taurus is not Ford's most expensive car".."nonetheless the Taurus is considered the flagship car. ". Considered by who, what source? A list of most expensive cars by brand might be more acceptable, because it's not subject to opinion (although WP isn't a price guide). As it is, only half the entries have sources and most of them are broken or no longer mention "flagship" anywhere. Vossanova o< 21:10, 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 19:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orly taitz[edit]

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

This woman is apparently an attorney for a minor politician. This minor politician has brought an obscure lawsuit questioning barack obama's eligibility to be president. While the lawsuit itself might deserve some brief coverage in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories this non-notable lead lawyer for the plantiff has no non-trivial coverage in any respectable television programs, magazines or newspapers. That is to say, though she is an apparent member of the california bar, her only mentions are on right wing blogs like worldnetdaily and her actual day job appears to be dentistry. Since she is not covered in any reliable sources sufficient to establish notability or otherwise make it possible to verify claims made about her, this article should be deleted. In other words, fails WP:BIO Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand This woman has a remarkable story and is quite notable. Orly Taitz was born on the Romanian/Russian border, emigrated to Israel where she married her American husband. She became a successful dentist in Orange County California with two dental offices, and a licensed attorney in California and a real estate agent. Orly Taitz has filed two lawsuits associated with the Obama Eligibility Controversy, one of which is currently in front of the US Supreme Court. Dr. Taitz is developing a third complaint with former members of the US military as plaintiffs dealing with the Obama Eligibility Controversy that will be launched in several states simultaneously. Lawsuits launched in several other states are "clones" of the Taitz lawsuits, including complaints in Hawaii, Washington State and Florida. These suits have been nurtured by Orly Taitz. Orly Taitz has considerable mention in the mainstream media, as can be verified by some simple Google searches. Large numbers of reliable sources are available to verify this information. I have only stumbled across this article today and I am confident this article can be expanded sufficiently to qualify under notability criteria.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt i look forward to seeing some of these reliable sources that apparently establish notability and that you say are so easy to find. I can't find any.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not making a call as to whether keep or delete the article, but I have moved the page to the correct style for a proper name, with both names capitalized. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think deletion is the proper course. Being bitterly opposed to Obama is not enough to be notable. Nor is being a dentist. (One might even think that someone who is simultaneously a member of three such professions is not likely to be notable at any of them.) There have been repeated successful arguments that being a lawyer on even a notable single case is not notability; nor is running a political blog unless it is influential. I've looked at the current material on Google news, and I do not consider any item there usable as a Reliable source for a BLP article. I think it fails Notability, Fringe, and the current interpretation of BLP single event. I would object to it even in user space, because of the extreme unlikelihood of it ever being an acceptable article. DGG (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I DO believe notability can be demonstrated, but it will take some time and effort, which clearly has not yet been expended on this article. I personally doubt that the article will be properly nurtured in the mainspace under the present circumstances.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only activity of note for this person is serving as a lawyer for "notable" cases. They cases themselves have a page; that is sufficient. --Weazie (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick Google News search turns up articles in renewamerica.us, WorldNetDaily, NewsWithViews.com, Right Side News and SkyNewswire.com, but those tend not to be terribly reliable sources. I did find this article, which Google News claims mentions Orly Taitz, but the name does not appear in the article. That is the full extent of the notability I can find. As to my opinion, the US court system seems to be taking the speedy deletion process with Dr. Taitz's cases (appropriately, I think), but neither my nor the courts' opinions matter to whether she is notable. superlusertc 2009 January 17, 06:59 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot. She spoke to the National Press Club. Probably doesn't do much, since it's self-reported. superlusertc 2009 January 17, 07:16 (UTC)
Just a quick correction. She spoke in a room that she and friends rented at the national press club (anyone can rent these rooms, so long as they pay).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I was wondering why they let her talk. superlusertc 2009 January 18, 23:43 (UTC)
  • Delete. There isn't enough meat here to merge. Perhaps her name should be mentioned in the conspiracy article, but no more than that. PhGustaf (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: But I hear that she argues in court as if she were pulling teeth. PhGustaf (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sufficient notability can be achieved. Grsz11 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I provided 7 or 8 mainstream media references, including the Orange County Register, the Orange County Weekly and Salon. There are lots more that are obtainable with a little effort. (I disagree with the opinion about World Net Daily, which had an increase of over 60% in readership last year, in a period when all mainstream media sources are experiencing decreases in audience; for example, LA Times is in bankruptcy, as is the Chicago Tribune, while the Washington Post and NY Times are not far behind. Denver Post has had massive layoffs, etc).
I believe that there have been many more mainstream media mentions of Dr. Taitz. For example, Orly Taitz has been interviewed on one or two mainstream radio programs daily for weeks. And things are likely to accelerate, since Dr. Taitz has a case in front of the US Supreme Court and another one coming up in front of the California Superior Court in a couple of months, and is launching a massive new case or set of cases soon.
Of the 31 or so lawsuits that have been filed associated with this eligibility controversy, Dr. Taitz has been directly or indirectly responsible for 5 of them so far, with more to come. Even if you disagree with her stance on this issue, you have to admit she is causing waves. In other words, she is notable. And she is being recognized as such.
The 8 examples I provided were removed [3] and placed on the talk page of this page [4], with no links or mention of this on this page.
In addition, my attempt to expand the article itself was immediately thwarted [5]. As I said above, in the current circumstances, it would be difficult to build an article of this nature while under intense scrutiny. Articles on most subjects would encounter a more forgiving environment. Given the controversial nature of this topic, many here are letting their own personal political agendas get in the way of objectivity.
I will remind everyone commenting here that WP:NOTE does not mean that you agree with the views of the subject of a WP:BLP. The question is not, "Is this person correct?" or "Do I agree with the views of this person?" but "Has this person garnered any mention in the mainstream media or made any impact on the culture?". By the latter standard, Dr. Orly Taitz clearly meets the threshold. This is particularly true since this situation is evolving and attention to these issues continues to grow (I know, I know, WP is not a crystal ball).--Filll (talk | wpc) 03:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quantity of references is not the issue. WP:ONEEVENT means the notability relates to the event, not the person. It is not a good idea to post a wall of text at an AfD discussion. I am sorry for not leaving a forward pointer. That's a good idea which I will definitely use next time. Jehochman Talk 04:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Practically speedy delete. Anyone can file an appeal with the Supreme Court, so being the lawyer for that appeal is hardly notable. At this point there isn't any coverage of Taitz in reliable sources, so one has to wonder why this wasn't speedied, but since an AFD was started, round file the article at the earliest opportunity. --Bobblehead (rants) 11:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the dentist-lawyer had won any court case, or even headlined an oral argument in Supreme Court, a la Michael Newdow, a case for notability could have been made. But right now, the subject has received media/blog coverage only for filing an application in the Supreme court - an application that, by all accounts, is sure to be rejected, and thus leave no footprints in US law. All the references provided so far are non-RS and/or the coverage of Orly Taitz is only incidental. I don't see an argument for even referring to the lawyer by name in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, let alone writing a biographical article. Abecedare (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, certainly not beyond the one event. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:36, 19 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. Icewedge (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkie-Wiener Sandwich[edit]

Twinkie-Wiener Sandwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was this put up as a joke? It seems to serve no purpose and have no notability. Aurush kazemini (talk) 20:41, 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. MBisanz talk 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Evans (photographer)[edit]

Rod Evans (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from the promotional issues related to the article -- not necessarily a reason for deletion -- this is an article on a commerical photographer with little evidence of notability beyond that of a working photographer, per WP:CREATIVE. No 3rd party sources beyond the trivial freshacconci talktalk 20:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rod Evans is considered a Creative professional as stated by Wikipedia:Notability (people). He is well known in his field by peers and students, has been featured in a number of magazines and books, received multiple awards and featured in a story which received a Regional Emmy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagesintern (talk • contribs) 20:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but I have to ask: do you work for Rod Evans? One of his websites is called http://www.evansimages.com/ and your username is Imagesintern. If this is the case, there is a conflict of interest that should be addressed. freshacconci talktalk 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Volunteering at the studio for the week, have been compiling information for a wiki page for a while. Regardless of my location or my username, he is notable in his field. The sources are solid, he's been featured in a number of books and magazines, and has spoken all over the country at photography conventions. What can I do to improve the page? It is obviously still under construction, but I will take any suggestions.--Imagesintern (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how you say this is not notable or verifiable. In the realm of photographers, especially senior photographers, he is notable. And how is this not verifiable? There are sources referencing magazines, books, TV spots, and interviews for which he has participated. Not MySpace? confused... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagesintern (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*cmt i eagerly await your supply of reliable sources that demonstrate your currently unsupported assertions as true.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:48, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 03:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unpowered aircraft[edit]

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

POV WP:Content fork of glider. FAA and FAI[6] and other sources state that they define glider in a wider way than preferred by a small number of editors, this article was essentially the result of a cabal trying to impose a non neutral pov on the wikipedia and this lead to the creation of this content fork.

faa-h-8083-13.pdf states:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines a glider as a heavier-than-air aircraft that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces, and whose free flight does not depend on an engine.

Additionally the entire concept of "unpowered aircraft" is unreferenced to any reliable source; it was created from thin air. Under the policy WP:VERIFIABLE: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Please vote Delete or Merge.

- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an AFD issue if one is a content fork of the other. And I'm sorry but that's not correct, the glider article is the older one, originally there was simply glider and I split the article into 'glider' (this one) and a subarticle sailplane (subarticles are not content forks) but an admin (quite wrongly) messed the article history around and rescoped the sailplane article with the with the result you have here; it makes it look that it's been here for ages, but it didn't exist as of 1st December 2008. As it stands at the moment the definition of both articles are absolutely identical.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing that they should be merged, but voted keep- a keep is not a merge.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both article have existed since 2002. It's likely that each contain info the other one hasn't got. I would use the definition by an official aviation body to crunch any content disputes. A merge is possible, but should be planned carefully. - Mgm|(talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of one month ago there was only one[7] which was about sailplanes, but called glider.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. I used the edit history tool to determine the dates. - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article seems to have more of an emphasis on the fact that the aircraft uses no power once in flight.Critical Chris (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having two articles with different emphasises on a single topic isn't permitted by NPOV. Wikipedia articles have to include all points of view, so both articles end up having to contain the same information, since the FAA define 'glider' to be unpowered aircraft the two articles end up the same. The only reason that this article exists is because other editors are trying to create and maintain a content fork about what a glider is, but that is explicitly forbidden by NPOV. It's like trying to maintain two articles on 'different topics' automobile and car(!)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the FAA definition only is very US biased. You're doing the NPOV there. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FAI also make more or less the same definition though, and they're not American, also the CAA in the UK more or less define glider the same way. That glider = unpowered aircraft is not really in doubt, and that definition is notable in both glider and unpowered aircraft and makes the two articles a content fork. Under the NPOV rules, the two terms are synonymous and must be merged into one article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unpowered aircraft =/= glider, from my comment below. There is not reason not to have an "unpowered aircraft" article, since there are non-gliders as well. That is a editing/rewrite problem, not a deletion problem. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ; The Glider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article was written by Wolfkeeper on 17:38, 9 December 2008 , so it appears to be a content fork, since before that date, according to page history, it was just a redirect, from 2002 onwards, until Wolfkeeper modified it. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct. The glider article (more or less as it stands today)[8] but with a vague introduction was the only article on 8th December 2008, I renamed it to sailplane and created a new article called glider to cover the superset. That isn't a content fork. An admin then messed around with history (essentially retroactively rename that version to 'unpowered aircraft') and rescoped the articles to create the content fork we have today.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no edit history at glider or Sailplane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)... can an administrator look into this? As it is now, it looks like Wolfkeeper content forked unpowered aircraft. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may give that impression, but the current broken article structure is due to Jmcc150 (who is a sailplane instructor that you may imagine prefers the term 'glider' to be solely applied for his kind of aircraft and is quite willing throw out the FAA definition to maintain this in the wikipedia- unbiased POV? In no way.) and Rlandmann who is an admin. Jmcc150 rescopes the article which was at glider (aircraft) to be about unpowered aircraft here (at the time the articles were glider (aircraft) and sailplane-which is one specific sort of glider, in the same way that hang glider is) and then Rlandmann with his admin priviledges moved all the articles around and essentially broke the history of sailplane (more than one edit, but a key one is here and he also moved sailplane to glider and added a redirect.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Glider (aircraft) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) currently has no history either, it appears the history is at unpowered aircraft, so you can't delete it, it contains the edit history. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a request on WP:ANI to fix this currently.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the term glider is synonymous with unpowered aircraft, a paper aeroplane for example is a glider. The FAA define glider in that way, as do most other sources. This means that an unbiased article at glider makes this one a content fork.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger problem is that there are unpowered aircraft that aren't gliders. Helium balloons are unpowered and aren't gliders, and have been used by balloonists. Unpowered autogyros have been used as reconnaissance and artillery observation platforms by warships. Manned kites have been used as observation platforms by armies and weather bureaus. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The exact definition used by the FAA of glider and sailplanes are:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines a glider as a heavier-than-air aircraft that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces, and whose free flight does not depend on an engine. The term glider is used to designate the rating that can be placed on a pilot certificate once a person successfully completes required glider knowledge and practical tests.

Another widely accepted term used in the industry is sailplane. Soaring refers to the sport of flying sailplanes, which usually includes traveling long distances and remaining aloft for extended periods of time.

This appears to me to be at least NPOV- one that all the evidence suggest that Jmcc150 is determined to exclude from the wikipedia. You'll note that a sailplane is a subset of a glider and this 'unpowered aircraft' nonsense is defined absolutely nowhere by any notable source; and as you say, would apply to lighter than air aircraft as well.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"unpowered aircraft" is a larger encompassing descriptive term of all aircraft that are not powered. Having such an article should not be a problem, since it's a descriptive title. The problem only involves making sure the content coverage is appropriate. Thus gliders are a specific case of unpowered aircraft, and sailplanes are a specific case of gliders. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In actual fact it's worse than that, it's not a subset/superset thing as not all gliders as defined by the various authorities are unpowered (the CAA defines a powered hang glider to be a glider and there's motor gliders and all sorts of other cases which are gliders but aren't unpowered), and the FAA specifically define glider separately to sailplane. There's also no definition of what 'unpowered aircraft' means in the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting, I always thought motorized gliders were classified as verylights 76.66.198.171 (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen them also described as ultralights. But the fundamental point here is that the editors involved here are trying to enforce a single, sort of hierarchical POV on the wikipedia, one that is not justified by the bulk of the sources. The real world is more like Venn diagrams.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Long term, I don't have any strong opinions on whether this stays or goes. At the very least, its long history needs to be merged preserved somewhere (probably Glider, where it came from originally). The various disputes over Glider and its scope really need to be resolved before the future of this article can be decided.

Wolfkeeper, please stay try to stay cool and civil. Accusations like "the result of a cabal trying to impose a non neutral pov on the wikipedia" are not helpful. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't recommend merging the histories. Since the articles both have existed simultaneously for a significant amount of time, the overlap in edits would mess up the history of said period. In this case a redirect, or moving to talk, then redirect to preserve the history is better. - Mgm|(talk) 10:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; I didn't realise until just now that Glider seems to have such a long history in its short life. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree; this article has existed for only about 3 weeks(!) The history prior to of 'this' article that was exclusively that of the glider article history; the glider articles history is in completely the wrong place; and magically starts about then. Possibly Rlandmann did it this way by mistake; but there's no case for keeping it like this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for nowThis is already being discussed on the talk pages of unpowered aircraft and glider. Unpowered aircraft is an attempt to describe the common features of some very different aircraft. These range from a 850kg aircraft travelling at 280km/h to a man hanging from a parachute. I agree the name is not elegant but it is consistent with the categorisation in the aircraft categorisation box. I suppose a name based on categorisation is inevitable, given that the name 'glider' is already correctly assigned to the object most commonly called a glider. Please note that 'glider' is also used by the governing body for air sports, the FAI, when distinguishing this type from hang glider and paraglider. Consequently there are three articles on glider, hang gliding and paragliding which contain much of the detailed information about these three types. It is only the common features that should be in 'unpowered aircraft', so it should be a fairly short article. All three types use rising air, they all obey the same laws of physics and may have some ancient ancestry. (There were some early flights before George Caley's machine. They may have used early parachutes or might just have been survivable plummets, but the type of unpowered aircraft is uncertain.) I can only describe Wolfkeeper's actions as precipitate. Yesterday he suggested merging this article and within hours started merging it before any discussion. Deletion has now been proposed by him. At least now this will give us all a chance to discuss this rationally. I do not have a great attachment to 'unpowered aircraft' and have proposed that a method by which its contents could be reallocated to other articles. However its removal should not be used as a pretext to change the scope of the glider article, which is the true motive behind this proposal and so it should stay for the moment. JMcC (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Mainly as nomination appears to be WP:POINT to continue and support debate at Glider. An AfD is not another vehicle for a content dispute. An unpowered aircraft is not a glider and is a term used by aviation authorities so is notable enough its have its own article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, that this is a term used by aviation authorities is completely unreferenced right now and over the entire 3+ week history of the article since it was split off of glider.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally you state that unpowered aircraft are not gliders, but Jmcc was the one that did the split, from glider, and he has indicated above that he did it to put gliders in it. Are you seriously claiming that this isn't a content fork?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there's a valid article to be made here (covering balloons perhaps), this so isn't it, and I cannot think of a worse way to start such an article nor do I find any evidence that Jmcc didn't consider it to be purely a dumping ground for his POV definition of glider.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, read the article he edited here: [9] what is it about? Gliders. Different sorts of gliders. This is not, and never was an article on unpowered aircraft.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find it interesting that a legal definition is quoted as part of this nomination when a legal definition offered as an example in a recent discussion on a similar subject was rejected by the nominator with the words: In my experience legal definitions usually tend to be unreasonably general or unreasonably specific or both. [10] Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is using a notable, reliable source in the wikipedia really in any way surprising? If so that's pretty damn sad.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is a super-set of glider, which is in turn a sub-set of unpowered aircraft and therefore both should be retained. This AfD is disingenuous method of attempting to deal with something that should be done via building consensus on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I honestly do find it to be a content fork; but I certainly understand your point about consensus, but sometimes other people are not interested in consensus, and this article was not created on a consensus either; and you may or may not consider, as I, that this article is a disingenuous way of dealing with lack of consensus also.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry to go against the grain, however this is really kind of a lumping together of things according to what they don't have -- in this case an engine. Both the Space Shuttle and paper airplanes are included. It's kind of like an article on "Animals without tails" which would include humans and starfish. Redddogg (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(The Space Shuttle has an engine to get up there but not to get down. That's why it's in the article.) Redddogg (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and googling "unpowered aircraft"[11] gets (for google) very few hits and no really substantive references at all. WP:VERIFIABLE states quite clearly that: if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. (emphasis mine)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count 13 citations in this article including one from NASA and two from the FAI, are they not reliable sources? Bearing in mind that no Wikipedia article is perfect to everyone's satisfaction and that all Wikipedia articles are a work in progress I suggest that this article is allowed to develop without hindrance. AfD is a last resort, I see no {{Expert-subject}} template in the article or {{Refimprove}}, adding those templates would be more constructive. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well AFDs are where you discuss how policy interacts with the article, not simply vote on it. None of those references actually define the overall topic though, which is what the policy says, and when I looked I was completely unable to find a clear definition either. Indeed, I got few hits. That's not a good sign. And the article is going to, at best end up an uncomfortable mixture of balloons and gliders of one form or another. Is there really any point to this?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, you started it. From my experience of AfDs an admin counts the number of 'keeps', 'deletes' or 'merges' after five days, does what is required and then closes the debate, sounds like a form of voting to me. How do you know how the article will end up, one editor may chose to completely re-write it and move it to a better title at the same time, that is allowed and happens all the time, I believe that you have lost the concept of how a Wiki works. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrites and renaming are not allowed in Aviation articles; statism is the new order.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary, since 1 January 2009 the aircraft project alone has produced 70 articles and navigation templates, all of which are in the state of being assessed, categorised and improved through copy editing, content expansion and referencing through mutual collaboration involving like-minded editors. The aviation project now oversees almost 26,000 articles, in my experience editors in this project are meticulous, pride themselves on self-policed high standards and are open to discussion at all times. 'Problem' aircraft articles are highlighted and improved wherever possible via the 'to do' list. It is obvious that they can not be all fixed overnight. I am aware that this is drifting off topic but I felt the need to support the very hard work done by many unthanked editors in the aviation project against derogatory comments. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I am in the middle of a large rewrite of an old aviation article right now and just moved an aviation article to a new name very recently. Patently not the case that "Rewrites and renaming are not allowed in Aviation articles; statism is the new order" - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find, with regret that I need to repeat this point. There's no definition of what unpowered aircraft is anywhere that I could find, and I looked quite hard. And I can't think of any reason that anybody would have to define this term either. So in the end the article just ends up as a grab-bag list of things that have fairly randomly been described as 'unpowered aircraft' by some source at some time. And there's also the issue that having a random grab bag list doesn't preclude the need to have material elsewhere as well; if something is in scope elsewhere it's still in scope elsewhere. I was seriously thinking of changing my vote but for Reddog's point. This is part of an attempt to map a hierarchy onto all the different types of aircraft, but hierarchical categories just don't map on well to the way real aircraft actually operate in the real world. It's easy to see that aircraft plausibly move from being powered to unpowered within a single flight. Is the gimli glider an unpowered aircraft? It plausibly was when it crashed, but is it actually considered so? Theres's a difference between plausible so and it being so. In the absence of a workable scope, I can't see how this article is useful to the wikipedia or anyone else, and I continue to recommend it become a redirect to Aircraft in accordance with verifiability.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are some sources that utilize the term in passing, I was unable to locate any sources which discuss or define this term. (interesting how the fork stole the history though) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:05, 19 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 WP:SNOW Keep with improved sourcing. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koodevide[edit]

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

No reliable sources are cited for this film, and Google is not helpful as the hits mainly seem to be YouTube ripoffs and sales sites. WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NOT a directory. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article on the director Padmarajan says the film won awards. I've found that details on notable Indian films tend to be hard to find online. If the current state of the article (especially it's references) is an insurmountable issue, I'd recommend userfication to either the creator or interested party from the India WikiProject, but keep in mind WP:DEADLINE. - Mgm|(talk) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Meets Wikipedia:Notability (films) . This is a very notable film by world famous malayalam director Padmarajan. The film had won many awards and also selected into Indian Panorama of films. I have tried to improve the article a bit.-- Tinu Cherian - 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 19:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Google is only unhelpful if you limit yourself to a basic web search, which for most subjects will turn up hundreds of unreliable sources for every useful one. A Google Books search indicates that this film has been written about in reliable sources, but as only snippets are available in most cases it's difficult to determine the extent of the coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the improvements made and the acceptance of English sources not being as readily available as Malayalam ones. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks to me like it meets the notability guidelines. —Borgarde 08:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is clearly established. Thanks to Tinucherian. Salih (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is pretty clear now. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:17, 17 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. lifebaka++ 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of Tyr[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax article. I've read the references from Nature (and I note that it appears elsewhere in an article where it does actually back up the article), and the Michlovic article, and they are completely irrelevant to the article, let alone referencing any 'Eye of Tyr'. Neither of the external links mention it. I haven't managed to get hold of the Gordon article or Svanberg but searches with the titles and 'Tyr' produce nothing. If archaeological groups and media personalities are interested in it, then they have managed to keep their interest off the Internet. I hope that the article's creator can show that I am completely off base, but I'll be surprised (although in one way pleased) if that happens. dougweller (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Probable hoax. Appears to be a part of the video game Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn. [12][13][14] -Atmoz (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no evidence that this is real, and misuse of references is a very bad sign. I am also worried that this was created by an admin, and would like to hear some explanation from him/her, as this is not the behaviour one would expect from an admin. Fram (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The admin involved has been automatically notified about this AfD, and I am hoping he will come along. I agree entirely that I don't expect other admins to behave like this. dougweller (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. I concur with nom's evaluation of those two cites; in addition, could not find a journal/magazine named Orient and the talk-show host link provides nothing to support the article. A Google Books search of the title (ISBN 9122020071) reveals the word "Tyr" only once, on page 338, and not in the context of "Eye of Tyr." I would close this myself but I think it can use a couple more opinions and a little more time. More to the point, though: I would like to caution against turning an AfD discussion into a referendum on an editor, admin or otherwise. Yes, we expect admins to be more careful, but all of us are capable of making mistakes.  Frank  |  talk  13:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But not from this level. Either he truly created it, or was duped into creating it for someone else. But whoever actually wrote the article did so with the blatant intent to mislead. You can misquote or misinterpret one source, but not all your sources to such a level. Writing an article about a band, restaurant, person, ... who turns out not to be notable enough is no big deal. Using poor sources (blogs, ...) is no big deal either generally. Deliberately creating hoaxes by using very respectable sources which have in fact nothing at all to do with the subject of the article is a big deal, as it one of the worst kinds of vandalism, and if an admin would knowingly do this, it would not be a defendable mistake but an act that could lead, in my opinion, to either desysopping or temporary blocking, since I can not trust said person with any of the tools any longer (yes, article creation is not admin tool use or abuse, but when you act in a way that people no longer trust you at all, you have a serious problem) Fram (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to add that he knows he is being discussed here as I notified him before Frank's post. He also knows about the AfD because he has responded to someone else on this talk page since the AfD notice. And, evidently no Admin has been sysopped except for misuse of tools. But this does need a very good explanation as to why the article was recreated (the original creator only edited the one time he/she created the article). dougweller (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In all honesty, I didn't actually write the article. I uploaded it as a request from the Wikipedia Review for another person (see thread here, actually content was passed in a PM) who claimed to be acting in good faith, a claim I believed, with permission (I made sure it's all hunky-dorey with the GFDL) and the content looked fairly good to me at the time. I don't have access to any of the sources listed, but nothing jumped out at me as blatantly false or such, so I believed that it was of a fringe-but-true and apparently notable topic. It appears that my initial assumption on the article was wrong, a mistake I am more than willing to own up to. I also agree with Frank that there are better venues for an in-depth discussion of my actions, I would prefer if such a discussion was held at one of those. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the contributions on Wikipedia Review of the person who made the request, see [15].dougweller (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • And let's grant lifebaka AGF, he made a mistake, trusted the wrong person, but that can happen to all of us. dougweller (talk) 15:36, 16 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 19:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capture ready[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:OR, combining synthesis from primary source documents, and even referencing another Wikipedia article. Also, see prior AfD on this, though this version seems different enough from that one not to be a speedy - though I would not object if another admin feels differently on that. Cirt (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom violated no original research. JBsupreme (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article seems to present no new information other than what is offered on Carbon capture and storage and links to a particular commercial site in China. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I can't remember if the first version (which I voted delete on) had these footnote references. What continues to make me vote NO is that the tone of the article is entirely unencyclopedic (it reads like an OR essay), that it is incoherent and does not even attempt to define what it is talking about, and that the matter is covered well enough in Carbon capture and storage. In other words, I pretty much agree with everything said above. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant, and then redirect to Carbon capture and storage as possible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 03:50, 17 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 per WP:SNOW. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shing02[edit]

Shing02 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. This is a BLP1E, if that. He wrote a song for a notable cartoon (notability is not inherited) but I honestly cannot even say he is known for that event. In which case he's entirely not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: check out this, this, this and this for coverage by reliable third-party sources. Ironholds (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Per the sources provided by Ironholds and the fact that two others languages Wikipedia have an article about the subject, meets WP:N. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ironholds' sources show that he does meet the notability guideline for musicians since he has been covered by multiple reliable secondary sources. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator doesn't state what efforts were taken to find sources before nominating but adequate coverage has been shown to exist. More from Google news: [16], [17], [18].--Michig (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' In addition to what was said above I think he meets the WP:CREATIVE criterion: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Theme songs are significant enough parts of a work of fiction to for creating it to be considered a major contribution. - Mgm|(talk) 22:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sources identified. Agreed it's unclear what efforts were made to determine sourcing -- and to add said sourcing -- before nomination was made. WP:BOLD should come before WP:AFD when possible. 23skidoo (talk) 23:13, 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 keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Hoflehner[edit]

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

purely promotional (that it was written by the subject or someone associated with him adds credence to that), questionable notability without references. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:40, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Park[edit]

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

Fails WP:notability. Also very badly written and virtually incomprehensible. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. While I admit I'm not doing well finding reliable source coverage, that's not necessarily surprising as the subject is a Christian Conservative-themed radio drama (not likely to get much mainstream coverage). It's popular on the web and apparently is broadcast through over 750 radio outlets worldwide, so I'd say it's notable. Feel free to edit the article if you think it's poorly written. Baileypalblue (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no problem maintaining articles on highly syndicated radio programs. I expect the article has improved since nomination, but still, AfD is not cleanup. -Verdatum (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Television shows are considered notable if they're highly syndicated, so radio shows should be no different. I'm not a fan of the sources used since it's not clear were target or the other store got the information from, but since the creators are unlikely to spread false information on highly visible pages, I think it's worth further investigations. - Mgm|(talk) 22:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to satisfy notability based upon width of circulation, as noted above. Content issues can be handled at the article level, as AFD is not for cleanup. 23skidoo (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources are on the weak side, but a widely syndicated radio show has some inherent notability. I've expanded and cleaned up the article as well.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  00:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Urge Keep. There is large following of this program and more information can be added. Article just needs a little clean up. 2writeornot2write (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2009
  • Keep. - Jonathan Park is very popular among homeschoolers. Jehorn (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. TheAE talk/sign 05:19, 18 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 g11, advertising for selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reflexive Human Science[edit]

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

Google brings up only a dozen or so hits for this, many of which deal with self-reflexive human science. I think this implies sub-borderline notability for this topic, at least at present. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonnotable term, seems to be promoting the selfpublished book which is the only cited source. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:28, 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 20:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITHACA - Interoperability Through Handler and Codec APIs[edit]

ITHACA - Interoperability Through Handler and Codec APIs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've tried to find references for this and failed. Obviously just searching for ITHACA gives a lot of non tech stuff, but ITHACA and Codec did not deliver for me either, so I have concerns about either or both of notability and verifiability, leading me to conclude that this may be an essay. I'll be happy to be proven wrong. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as original research. I cannot find this term in use anywhere. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced original research. -Atmoz (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essay.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research. I find nothing in any among dozens of academic databases, nor through the usual googles. Jlg4104 (talk) 19:20, 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 keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 02:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RMK Residential School[edit]

RMK Residential School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Flunks WP:SCHOOL WP:N. No references in this article for this Grade 3-10 institution. THF (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, referenced. THF: last time I checked a proposed policy that failed to gain community consensus is not a reason for delete. We don't arrest people based on the Offences Against the Person Act 1828 now, do we. Something repealed, overwritten or never accepted in the first place has 0 weight in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still no references in this article. The school's own home page doesn't count. THF (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't count for the standard referencing reason (referencing controversial information, for example) but they are perfectly valid as references to hard facts. I'll repeat as others have below; referencing (or the lack thereof) is not a reason to delete. Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons I declined the {{prod}} on this. There's nothing to suggest this school isn't notable, and consensus is generally that schools are notable due to their impact on local communities. Arguing to delete on the basis that the article doesn't comply with a rejected notability guideline is just plain bizarre. And whatever the nominator might think, "unreferenced" is not a reason to delete. – iridescent 18:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the general consensus as that schools are notable they wouldn't be nominated so often. Clearly there's no consensus of the sort. At least nothing like the consensus about towns/rivers/mountains. - Mgm|(talk) 21:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - includes a high school and is significant in its community. There are some web sources that can be added. Indian schools have a poor internet presence and to avoid systemic bias time should be given for local sources to be found. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Chennai. While primary references are somewhat acceptable to cite particular hard-to-verify-facts, they can't be solely relied on to verify an entire article. In that case the article would fail WP:RS and WP:GNG (the last one applies because there's no indication the school itself is particularly special). It wonno awards, had no notable alumni or anything that would make an WP:ORG notable without extensive coverage in sources. = Mgm|(talk) 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the references added by Orlady. - Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just now added two third-party sources to the article, and more online sources are available. It seems that RMK is an oft-mentioned example of the growing phenomenon of residential schools in India. It's notable! (But since it was established in 2007 and only enrolls kids up to the 8th standard, it's a bit premature to look for a list of notable alumni.) --Orlady (talk) 04:48, 16 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 Hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OxyVita[edit]

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

Blatant advertising. Appears to be a recreation of earlier deleted page "with adequate citation and references". As a lack of citations was irrelevant to the previous debates, it does not enhance the case for retention. No suitable previous version exists to roll back to, and no useful content is salvageable from the current article. Templates were added noting the article's shortcomings were added several months ago without significant change happening. Rogerb67 (talk) 14:37, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Simon Mayr[edit]

List of compositions by Simon Mayr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Orphan, WP:NOT#IINFO THF (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a discriminate list if I ever saw one. WilyD 14:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The references section could use a little work, but overall, the list seems perfectly acceptable by wiki standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of 131 similar articles in Category:Compositions by composer. Current practice is to split a subpage for compositions off composers' biographical articles if there are more than 20-30 works. (This is to keep down the size of the biography, make it more accessible and separate technical from general information.) These articles are not random collections of informaton - nor are they orphaned. (In this case there are links to the page from other articles.) Lists of compositions are an important part of music encyclopedias such as Grove - and should also be of this one. --Kleinzach 14:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As WilyD says, the list is selective, not indiscriminate, and it is not an orphan either (and being orphaned is not a criteria for deletion except for images). Baileypalblue (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'm persuaded. This can be closed by WP:SNOW. THF (talk) 15:02, 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. MBisanz talk 03:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Suppression[edit]

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

Orphan personal essay by SPA, and not an especially well-written one at that. NPOV problems, too. THF (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete the contents of the article does not really relate to the (miscapitalised) title. and this subject is already covered in other more relevant articles. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what to do with this one. While the article is poorly written and has NPOV issues (i.e., placing undue weight on the lack of action on behalf of the federal government following the civil war) and also some stuff that comes across as OR (has anyone really linked the KKK et al to lack of enforcement of "black rights"? It sounds surprising, as I would have thought stricter enforcement of such laws would have led to even more hostility), it also has redeeming points that could potentially be merged to African American history. It does seem like a lot of work to save them, though, and I personally don't know enough about this period of history to do it. Whatever happens, however, the article cannot remain. So consider my !vote to be delete unless somebody offers to merge what little of the article is worth keeping. JulesH (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fork of Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States and its child article Disfranchisement_after_the_Civil_War. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:06, 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 keep. per WP:SNOW Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Word Fellowship[edit]

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

fails wp:n. this is only mentioned in two reliable secondary sources. a section in the appendix of a book about cults, and a mention in a people magazine article (of which the church is not the subject). one reason this article could exist would be if the sources indicated that "The scope of activities are national or international in scale" per wp:org, but they don't. the cult book describes this as a "relatively small" movement and says that at it's peak in the 1970s it only had 100 churches. i would hardly describe this as "national" in a nation with something like 300,000 churches. the last afd had lots of keep voters who didn't refer to policy and seemed to ignore the reasons given by the afd nominator. i would take this to drv as i dispute the closing decision but the closer gave no explanation of why he closed it as keep so i'm not really sure how to go about disputing it. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry, i didn't think to do that. i will notify him of this afd so that he can give an explanation here. sorry about that. Jessi1989 (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for essentially the same reasons I gave in the previous AfDs. Nothing has changed since those earlier AfDs. The nominator seems to have the mistaken perception that notability is based solely on the here and now. Notability is not temporary, and historical topics are within the scope of the encyclopedia. I don't want to argue about the LWF's current membership numbers and geographic scope, although both seem to be larger than the nominator contends. Regardless of what its membership numbers and geographic coverage are now, this organization is notable for the attention that it has received in the past, including (1) coverage in published books about new religious movements and (2) being a major subject of a documentary film by Yoko Ono's estranged first husband. --Orlady (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, i'm not only saying that it's not notable now, i'm saying that it was never notable. the figures i have given are straight out of the source so i don't think i am contending anything. i think you are misrepresenting the facts here a little. (1) it was only covered in the appendix of one published book and (2) as this film isn't even notable enough to have an article i don't see how this is evidence of notability for a church mentioned in it. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That one published book is not necessarily the only publication that exists regarding this church. It just happens to be a book that was accessible online. Coverage in the appendix of that book was fairly extensive, and the book cited other published sources that no one here has yet gone to the trouble to find and cite. Focused coverage in a published book is a pretty solid indicator of notability. As for the film, coverage of the LWF in a widely-released documentary film is a further indication of the notability of the LWF. The fact that the film does not yet have its own article (however, the filmmaker does) does not have relevance to the question of whether the film provides third-party coverage of the topic that helps to indicate notability (anyway, see WP:OTHERSTUFF). --Orlady (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what other published sources does the book cite? i am aware of wp:OTHERSTUFF but my point was the the film is not notable, and therefore it is not evidence of notability for this church. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the film does not yet have an article does not mean that the film is not notable; it may simply mean that no one has written the article yet. Any film released in 1985 (from your user ID, I'm guessing that's before you were born) is far less likely to have a Wikipedia article than a film released in 2008, but that does not mean that the films of 2008 are more notable than the films of 1985. Regardless, you will not find support for your theory that, in order to be notable, a topic must have been covered in multiple independent published sources that are themselves notable topics. --Orlady (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Subject looks like its been covered in multiple independent sources that would be considered reliable by wiki standards. AFAIK, that makes it notable. I see no real reason to delete.Umbralcorax (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies the notability requirements of WP:CORP, which says: "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." The People magazine article and Ruth Tucker book cited satisfy this requirement. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, note the statement I just cited applies specifically to non-commercial organizations like religious movements, not to organizations in general. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Consensus in the last two AfD was clear: subject is notable. Nothing has changed since then. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment there seems to be some misunderstanding here. this church was not "covered in multiple independent sources" as the keep voters above are suggesting. a mention in an appendix does not count as coverage. neither does a mention in an magazine article. this church was the subject of neither the book or the article. two mentions does not count as coverage in multiple independent sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • These were not mere "mentions". The LWF is the topic of 3 pages of text in the book, with several footnoted citations. The People magazine article is a real article (not just a short blurb) about what Anthony Cox and his daughter did for the 14 years after they "disappeared," and his involvement with the LWF is a significant part of the story of what he did. Finally, the LWF is the main focus of the documentary film (which is not actually cited as a source in the article -- I don't know if any of us has seen it, but is described in multiple other independent sources that are cited). --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject of the article is clearly notable, both in the more important sense of having multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage available and in the less important sense of meeting some of the proxy conditions such as scope of activity. (The group itself lists churches in 3 countries as of today, and the sources say that it is smaller (or from the group's spin, more centralized) now than it used to be.) In addition to the sources cited in the article, the original published version of this would count as a reliable independent source with some content about the group. Contrary to Jessi's misunderstanding, it is not necessary that the group be the subject of an entire work, just that the work offer significant coverage (more than just statistics or a one line sentence), and the sources certainly do meet our standards. GRBerry 18:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW keep: Nothing has changed n the last few weeks. As I commented in the last AfD - lots of agendas here, but the article has WP:RS for notability and should be kept. Springnuts (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep on the grounds that the initial nomination and the immediate followup comments suggests incorrect process might have been followed with this renomination (with clear good faith intent, er, no pun intended)plus the fact it's been only 3 months since the last one, though that's border line if the nominator has a concern over the closure. No comment on the merits of the article itself; no prejudice to renomination if proper process calls for it. 23skidoo (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone but nominator. Several independant sources, clearly notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:04, 16 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 01:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cupsogue Pictures[edit]

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

No real claim to notability. No significant coverage in independent sources. Claims of having produced Outlaw (2007 film) appear not to be supported by independent sources and is dubious. imdb list the production companies as Ingenious Film Partners and Vertigo Films and lists Gene Fallaize as one of 38 executive producers and the dvd credits may list 989 executive producers. Page was made by the publicist for Cupsogue Pictures. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having discussed this with the company, we feel we have supplied enough material to prove notability. If the page is to be deleted, then so be it, but it will surely be recreated within the coming months due to the large amount of large-scale upcoming productions in productions that will be of much public interest. In regards to crediting, all productions produced by Gene Fallaize are in association with Cupsogue Pictures. One film does not prove or disprove eligibility. I would ask why, when you feel it is appropriate, that you look to IMDb for confirmation, when at other times you consider IMDb a 'non-trustworthy source'? If you are at all aware of the IMDb, you will know that they carefully check and verify every credit on their database directly with industry records, thus all credits that are published on the site have all been pre-verified. To reject any pre-validated credits by the IMDb for inclusion in Wikipedia is rather ignorant of the work made by them to validate the credits in the first place. As we have said though, if the page is to be deleted, then we respect your decision, and look forward to seeing the new page on there in the coming months. Grahampitt —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete Fails the primary notability criterion for commercial organizations. The article can be recreated if/when multiple reliable sources can be found that deal with the company as the primary topic (not just mentioning it in passing). User:Grahampitt, we appreciate your willingness to work with us to improve wikipedia and this article; you may want to review wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines to avoid any difficulties with other wiki editors. Thanks, Baileypalblue (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find directory entries and blog mentions but no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above concerns with notability and verification. Also note the apparant conflict of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Poor sourcing, inadequate to show notability. Although WP:COI editing is not always fatal to the reputation of an article, when we notice that the article may have been created by someone from the company, we immediately need to get real information from elsewhere so that we know what to believe. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable company. Schuym1 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. No evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are two possibilities:
  1. The company is lying and they've fabricated everything in IMDB (which is untrustworthy anyway) just so they could get in Wikipedia. Or ...
  2. It's true.
IMBD lists 6 movies for the company, Gene Fallaize as producer of 9 movies (and as co-executive producer on Outlaw). That's notable enough for me and, if you think it's true, I don't see why you would say the company isn't notable. Personally, I think a vote to Delete for poor sourcing shouldn't be allowed -- poor sourcing has no bearing on actual notability. A quick search turns up more independent confirmations (http://www.janinegateland.com/page3.htm, http://www.weblo.com/celebrity/available/Gene_Fallaize/685930/) that the company isn't lying. Mark the article as needing work, even needing significant work, but the company and, I think, the director are notable. I do think the COI edits by the Cupsogue publicist(?) were inadvisable (and there are a lot of people who don't understand Wikipedia), but that has no bearing on whether the company and the director are notable. RoyLeban (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about Outlaw (2007 film)? The Cupsogue Pictures article claims that the firm produced it, but no reliable source can be found to support that. The mention of blogs in your comment is not persuasive, since they are traditionally not considered reliable here. Sourcing is important because we don't believe claims that can't be reliably attested. Otherwise people could just boast of their accomplishments and we'd have to accept their word for it. EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make it clear that I don't want to be a defender of Cupsogue. I'd never heard of them until a couple of weeks ago, when I ran across them. But, I hate to see things excluded/deleted because a tiny subset of people on Wikipedia don't know anything about the subject (and I'm in that tiny subset in this case). Moving on... if IMDB isn't reliable then neither is Wikipedia. You might want to read this when pointing at WP:RS. WP:Reliable source examples makes it clear that parts of IMDB are reliable (screenwriters' credits) while other parts (trivia) are not. Where do producer credits fall? Lists of movies? Directors and actors and actresses? I don't know.
The question here is notability, not accuracy. I find it hard to believe that this company is lying and that all these other people are lying. If you believe they are lying, then you should vote Delete. If you believe they are telling the truth, you should vote Keep and make sure the "unsourced" comment in the article stays until its fixed. If the article stays, it's clear it needs work.
I happen to know John Langdon, who is listed as the ambigammist for Monkeyshine (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1332027/, http://www.monkeyshinemovie.com) and I could contact him for info, but that would be considered original research and most likely ignored, so I have hesitated doing that. RoyLeban (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what information you get bac, it isn't necessarily original research. If the answer is "Yeah, Variety published an article on that back in Decemeber. Here's the URL", then it's perfectly fine. As for the notability, the North American entertainment industry is heavily covered, so for a current company, the complete lack of any sourcing to be found beyond directory entries is quite indicative of nobody covering the subject as opposed to sources being available but not yet found. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim 'this must be true, otherwise they would be lying,' goes flatly against our WP:Verifiability policy. We expect to see the proof. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misquote me, but, in any event, I respectfully disagree. This is about whether the article should exist, not what is in it. If the company is notable but we have no information that can be verified, we could have an empty page saying the company exists and nothing else (not that I expect that to be the case). RoyLeban (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have the order backwards. (1) Reliable sources are found, saying that the company is important, (2) editors judge that the sources prove notability, (3) the article is kept. The only case where (1) is ever skipped during AfD is where preliminary Google searches or library searches establish that real sources will be easy to find. You'll forgive us for being skeptical whether real sources will ever be found in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 19 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Order[edit]

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

Non-notable religious magazine. Article offers no indication of extent of readership, potential readership base (presumably British Traditional Catholics -- likely to be a fairly small group as only 9% of UK is Catholic and about 0.2% of Catholics are Traditional Catholics), or influence. Article is cited solely to the magazine that is its topic.

I am also nominating the following related page, the article on its current editor, likewise sourced solely to this magazine (and offering no indication of notability beyond his editorship of it):

Rod Pead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HrafnTalkStalk 10:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability Subject has not received any coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only mentions I can find (apart from the magazines own web site) are mirror versions of the Wiki article. TeapotgeorgeTalk 11:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about the fly cover of Cranmer's Godly Order by Michael Davies; the Angelus, the magazine of the SSPX; the Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre; Father Nicholas Gruner; Catholics United to Peter; Fatima Crusader; Apropos; Searchlight magazine (hardly complimentary); EWTN; Latin Mass Society of Ireland; Catholic Family News; Christian Insight.
This took far longer to type out here than to search, but the point is that they are everywhere in the traditionalist movement, as you would expect for a journal that has been consistently published for 49 years.
JASpencer (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These appear to be mostly fellow-travellers, often of questionable reliability, and often mere trivial mention (or even mere citation). Something more indepedent and/or substantive is required for WP:NOTE. HrafnTalkStalk 11:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what a lot of fellow travellers (even if you do count Searchlight (!) and Fidelity). And as for "mere mentions" being part of the "Traditionalist triumvirate" and the "most influential Catholic Conservative magazine in the UK" are mere mentions of a sort, I suppose.
The point is that a simple search using Google finds far more than a few mirror sites. The arguement that the first page of Google is even on the face of it evidence of non-notability was OK three years ago, but it has little merit in these days of well SEO'd mirror sites. (I'd also say that something that was influential in the 60s, 70s and 80s is likely to appear in lots of footnotes).
JASpencer (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are either of those quotes from reliable third-party sources? Or merely back-patting from fellow Traditionalists? Being one of the three biggest fish in a very small pond is hardly a qualification for notability. HrafnTalkStalk 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the "most influential Catholic Conservative magazine in the UK" comes from SSPX Agenda, a Tripod.com-hosted site of no apparent reliability at all. HrafnTalkStalk 15:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apprehend from this personal attack that it was originally published in Fidelity Magazine, and merely republished in the unreliable web-hosted site. Please inform us as to why we should consider the former to be a reliable source. HrafnTalkStalk 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1) It's an international magazine (based in the UK) with quite a lot of influence on both the conservative and traditionalist Catholic network. (2) It has a disproportionate influence on British Catholic politics, for example originating the boycott on CAFOD.. (3) It has been in continuous operation since 1960 (or the 1950s if you include its predecesor the Christian Democrat). JASpencer (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...oh and merge or redirect Rod Peade into the Christian Order article to avoid losing the history. JASpencer (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An influence on politics would certainly make this notable, but it's not in the article. Can you give a source that proves that claim? - Mgm|(talk) 20:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no establishable notability which makes claims of influence highly dubious and, at any rate, unverifiable.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: Non-notable magazine and non-notable person. Schuym1 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable magazine that has an established history since 1960. Dwain (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The magazine exists, has been discussed in secondary sources. I don't especially like conservative Catholics either but that is not a reason to delete their magazine. Redddogg (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: non-notable, dubious claims. JamesBurns (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - To take care of the easy one first, even if the magazine were notable, the editor is not. As for the magazine, nowhere in the article does it delineate any effects the magazine has had. There isn't even a circulation indication. It's all well and good to be critical, but when the criticism has no effect or is ignored (as it appears to be; "troublesome" doesn't really indicate anything), the medium cannot be notable. MSJapan (talk) 18:32, 20 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 all. kurykh 00:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unhexseptium[edit]

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

Contested prods regarding a series of formulaic articles about undiscovered elements. Other articles in the series includes:

Unhexoctium‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unhexennium‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unseptnilium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unseptunium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unseptbium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unsepttrium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball's explicit ban against articles on predetermined systematic pattern of names that have been pre-assigned to future events or discoveries. Allen3 talk 10:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL says: "Certain scientific extrapolations, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC, before isolation in the laboratory, are usually considered encyclopedic." I've checked the history and it appears to be a longstanding exception. I'd say there's good reason for it, because it's not mere speculation, it's documented with scientific evidence. - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Something went wrong. I could've sworn I had at least one hit when I did a page search on these elements. I blame it on the computer ;) - Mgm|(talk) 23:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not aware IUPAC has documented any of these elements. Scientific evidence is only given for elements 170-173, and it's nothing specific to a single element. It would be better placed on Period 9 element.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Roentgenium and invited those !voting keep based on the WP:CRYSTAL exception to reconsider. These elements have definitely not been documented by IUPAC on anyone else. There may be some confusion as to what is meant by the term "documented". In the context of chemistry, it doesn't mean simply "hypothesized", but rather more like "observed". With transuranics, typically they have been observed in miniscule amounts for fractions of a second (in say atom-smashing experiments) before they are ever isolated (i.e. put in a bottle in relatively a pure state.) And that's the distinction the exception is drawing. Now, I wasn't around when this exception was written, but that's the only scientifically plausible interpretation especially in light of the hurricane example discussed immediately prior to it. Yilloslime (t) 02:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep articles with a specific exception in the relevant guideline have a pretty clear consensus to remain. If you want to dispute the consensus of the guideline, I'd suggest you should do so on the guideline's talk page, and then bring these back here if a change is made. JulesH (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball specifically names this instance as an exception to the rule. There is no other reason to delete these. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - a misconception has been formed (partly my fault) that these elements have been documented by the IUPAC, when infact they have not. WP:CRYSTAL does not have an exception for non-documented IUPAC elements. I would also be in favor of creating a list of 'IUPAC placeholder names' if enough references exist. Sorry for the confusion, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm surprised any explanation is even needed, but discussed in good sources. WilyD 14:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy keep articles, as per above. Jll (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC) As they have not been been documented by IUPAC, the exemption discussed in the WP:CRYSTAL policy does not apply. Jll (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article contains only boilerplate material and no sources. I think it was already decided some time ago that articles on undiscovered elements should be deleted unless there is anything to say about them.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep all. WP:CRYSTAL has an explicit exception for these articles. Upon review of the policy, these are not exempt. Thanks to Tim Vickers for the note about this. -Atmoz (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly keep as these are the interesting articles I just created yesterday. These articles contain some predictions based on their periodic trends, such as electron configurations, electrons per shell, chemical reactivities, chemical series, and presumed phase of matter. The atomic mass for these elements come from the Apsidium website.--BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that in near future, the extended periodic table may become even more important as scientists will develop more theories about the properties for all 218 or more elements including elements 167-173 and write papers about those theories. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia's No original research policy requires that the existence of scientific theories precedes the existence of the Wikipedia article. Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article covers a placeholder, temporary name. Why not just create a single article called List of IUPAC Placeholder Element Names and cover them in that article/list. The reader will be confused by including the regular infobox when most of the information for this still undiscovered element is not known. Presumably, someone will eventually discover it in a laboratory, but it will be so unstable that we may never measure any of its physical or chemical properties, so the infobox will always been unfilled. However, the discoverer will propose a name (e.g., Wikipedium) and that name will become permanent when adopted by IUPAC and other international standard organizations. Racepacket (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete the viability of elements beyond 139 is pure speculation, since chemical properties depend on electrons, and the 138/139 articles state that they are the very last possible elements in chemistry. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a probability that the most stable isotope of unhexseptium (predicted to be Uhs-460) is speculated to have a very long half-life of 1.7 × 1015 years, which can practically be stable. Elements from 168-172 is speculated to have stable isotopes and element 173 has a half-life of 96.42 days for the most stable isotope (Ust-477). --BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 00:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Do you have references for these bold statements???--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • These speculations about their stabilities are unreferenced. However, their atomic masses are referenced, which come from the Apsidium website, which list general properties for all 226 elements, which has more elements than the extended periodic table of 218 elements on Wikipedia. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. These elements have not been "documented by IUPAC" at all; these articles are pure speculation, unsourced of course, as is so often the case. They were presumably added to raise the profile of the site apsidium.com, liked in all the articles. Physchim62 (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very emphatic. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without countering the reasoning that anything said about these elements would be original research, because science has not documented them, however "emphatic" you are you won't make an argument for keeping. Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - a reasonable exception to the rule. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is only if one ignores one of the other rules at the same time. It isn't within Wikipedia's remit as an encyclopaedia of existing knowledge to document new elements that are currently unknown to science. Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Contrary to many !keep votes, this element is most definitely not covered by the exception in noted in WP:CRYSTAL, as it has not been documented by IUPAC. This is more analogous to the hurricane example cited in item of CRYSTAL: "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." We know what this element will likely be provisionally named if it's ever observed, but so far it hasn't been observed, and, as there are only 8 googlehits for the term[19] it seems no one is even doing theoretical on "unhexseptium." (This would also suggest this article is mostly original research). List of hypothesized transuranic elements might be encyclopedic, but individual articles such as this one are not. Yilloslime (t) 02:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't we just have an unlimited number of these not-yet-discovered/created elements? Some limit has to apply here? The current majoritarian theory says Z=210 is the limit on nuclear stability, so we get another bunch of articles - and what does the loyal opposition thoerize? no limit perhaps? aha, we'll be on our way to our 10,000,000th article right away. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The IUPAC website link at this page has a link "IUPAC Atomic Weights" to this page which has information on the listed elements. So it is actually documented. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and that page lists precisely six elements with temporary names which can be said to be documented by IUPAC, numbers 112–116 and 118. It has no information on the elements listed here, elements 167–173: pure, undocumented crystal-ball material. All seven articles are virtual word-for-for word identical to each other, with a "Significance" [sic] section in four of them which is cribbed from Encyclopaedia Britannica, and which points out that it may well be impossible to ever produce them. Physchim62 (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, and possibly redirect to Systematic element name. Absolutely nothing can be said about these elements which isn't complete speculation. Not even that they can possibly exist. No-one is sure about whether elements with atomic numbers > 137 can exist (see Untriseptium). This is even worse than the "Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" example on WP:NOT, given that at least we can be reasonably confident that such a storm will exist. Note that no element from 140 to 166 has its article. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget that 26.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot (including this one) Physchim62 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, I can find no reliable sources that discuss these elements, so Wikipedia cannot have articles on them. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I removed the PRODs from these because it wasn't clear to me that these weren't topics of legitimate theoretical research interest and thought they deserved wider discussion, but it seems pretty clear now that there aren't reliable sources that we know of to base these articles on.--ragesoss (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either WP:MADEUP or just based on an unreliable website. --Itub (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge all of them together on Transuranium elements or something and redirect these names there, since people might be looking for them, there are reliable sources (see links) and it's encyclopedic info, so we might as well make them a bluelink. They also have much repeated info, which is shouting for a merge, compare with Ununpentium which has a lot of info on how people is searching for it.
Links: Recommendations for the naming of elements with atomics numbers greater than 100 in 1978 "Elements of atomic numbers greater than 103 are often referred to in the scientific literature but receive names only after they have been 'discovered' " One of the names, Unseptnilium, appears listed there for #170. The only two hits on google scholar are the two versions of that paper recommending names. Unnilseptium appears on several scholar papers [20].
One thing: these still-non-existing names are making its way into other articles like the extended periodic table [21] as if they had been already discovered, which is a very good reason to cut this here and now. They need to be distinguished somehow from the rest of elements (maybe an asterik at the side of the name, or making a separate table below). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge all of them together per Enric Naval, above, seems like a fine idea to me. Otherwise, I'll certainly go with Delete. Tim Ross (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and strong keep Unseptnilium, as it has special chemical significance. Unseptnilium, too, is mentioned by IUPAC: [22]. And, guys, what about the rest of the undiscovered elements? These aren't the only ones. The extended periodic table has more elements, including the g-block elements - a block whose existence has not even been confirmed! Are all of those going to be nominated for deletion too? I hope not, as I would vote keep on them as well.Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which reference? The IUPAC article that basically teaches how to count (i.e., how to make up a name for any arbitrary element)? By that logic we should have an article on three million seventy thousand four hundred and thirty-two because there are books that teach how to make up names for numbers. --Itub (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all very poorly sourced; seem to be almost entirely OR and speculation. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:39, 20 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. kurykh 00:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey & Ballot Systems[edit]

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

This appears to be an article written like a marketing pitch and not notable. It appears to be "sourced" nearly entirely by self published sources and the company's website. The article has multiple issues and no one is improving the article. It appears sock puppetry has been used to delete maintenance templates as well. Further there is a potential for conflict of interest with the author and the article is an orphan. Electiontechnology (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is clearly not notable by WP standards. Cbackert (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications of notability Alberon (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article is self-serving the company itself seems to be big enough to be notable, even just from the picture of its building. Why is every little website and "internet meme" considered worth an article and not a company which is a major employer and a participant in public events? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the first time I've seen a picture of a company HQ being quoted as a notability-granting source. The article itself says that this company has 40 employees - is that really "a major employer" and "big enough to be notable" in the absence of evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources? The sources in the article don't look adequate for notability, and all Google News hits (which I would expect to see for any notable organisation in this one's era, location and field) seem to be press releases and passing mentions. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There have been significant changes to the article in order to remove any hint of market, it is strictly informational. Also, there have been added sources so the information is no longer self-published. In terms of notability, the company is known within the field and represents an area of business underrepresented in Wikipedia. Also, I agree with Steve Dufour, what makes a small website or internet meme more notable than a company that supports a community? Benjamin Dominic (talk) 22:43, 16 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#G12. No prejudice against creating a properly written and sourced article about this musician. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T.V.Gopalakrishnan[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Non-notable person. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: After a cursory inspection I believe this person passes WP:N as a notable musician/vocalist, so I think the page should be recreated after the copyright issue is resolved. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per copyvio problem noted by User:Usrnme h8er. Baileypalblue (talk) 16:33, 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. MBisanz talk 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papa vs Pretty[edit]

Papa vs Pretty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Removed speedy. Non-notable band. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article should not be deleted since it meets criteria point number 1 and number 11 on the Wikipedia guidelines for notability of musicians and ensembles. Please see http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=85344314&blogID=460807500 for a list of independant publications in which the band has been included and rotation on national broadcaster Triple J is referenced in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KreepySpooks (talk • contribs) 08:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— KreepySpooks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment. The myspace link only seems to list other blogs and forums where the band has been discussed, not independent reliable sources, and the Triple J link only mentions one play of this track, not "rotation". Have you got any better evidence of notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 16 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 hymen. MBisanz talk 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

list of animals with hymens[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    List of animals with hymens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is not actually an article, it is a mere short list lacking reputable scientific references. The linked articles never mention these animals hymens. This article is without context other than a gossip column and a web blog. Tallard (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete...just because. Boston (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The purpose of The Straight Dope is to dispell myths and popular misconceptions. Calling it a gossip column is an inaccurate description. The author uses reliable paper sources, interviews with experts and on occasion an scientific experiment (in the case of the Mpemba effect). There's nothing unreliable about it. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be more wikipedic, mpemba has plenty of scientific evidence, that's why the Sdope my quote it, but the SDope may certainly not be the source for the mpemba effect--Tallard (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this list is not about myths, it's pretense is to give a anatomical listing that in 9 years of teaching university level anatomy I have yet to see in a single textbook.--Tallard (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because the publication aims to dispell myths doesn't mean it's not suitable to be used as a citation for non-myths. To dispell myths you need to propagate the truth too. (To dispell the idea that cold water freezes faster, you need to explain the Mpemba effect. A similar thing can apply to anatomy) - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tallard, are you asserting that the hymen itself is a myth -- that there is no such anatomical feature in either human or non-human mammals? If this thesis is true, then the list certainly should be removed. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although wikipedia's hymen definition makes an effort, to a certain degree, to reflect the modern idea of a "mucous membrane fold" near the opening. The real world non-scientific people understanding of hymen is "virginal membrane covering opening" associated with the "popping", a religious concept. The reason secular anatomists do not discuss hymens is this: mucous folds are not only present at the opening but throughout the vagina, nothing distinguishes the opening from the entirety, it's not a PVC pipe with a lid! but a lumpy foldy unshapely passageway, so if nothing distinguishes the opening from the rest of the passageway, then why give it a separate name, it makes no anatomical sense and is why some people prefer to not use the word hymen in anatomical discussions, because it exists in no other sense than the religious virginal one. However it is true that in rare cases, the vagina is incompletely opened, a medical/anatomical anomaly (see phimosis for similar male phenom) which when called hymen reflects the definition lay people think is the normal anatomical situation. So I will not fight in this debate about the existence or not of a hymen for humans because it is an integral part of religious people's view of the world, however the concept of hymen in animals when virginity is not an issue is indeed completely irrelevant, and is not found in modern textbooks. This list's unstated message is to say "women can be virginal, just as these animals in nature" but no professors teach this, in the same way as we used to say "women should only have one mate, because some birds and other animals are monogamous, which turned out to be no more than religious preconceptions. In a world where science is freeing itself of religious misconceptions, it is important that encyclopedias reflect this. Pardon my wordiness.:)--Tallard (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Supports the hymen article. Seems to satisfy WP:LIST (except a lead should be added). Lack of references is not a valid reason for deletion unless there is reason to believe the article can never be sourced, which is not the case here as any anatomy book for any species listed should be able to confirm or deny the claim that the species has a hymen. A lead should be added to the article to provide context as suggested by Tallard, but that's a reason to improve the article, not a rationale for deletion. Regarding Tallard's other arguments, list articles are as valid as any other wikipedia articles, and are validated by the same criteria; and there's no need for linked articles to mention these animals' hymens, any more than it's necessary for articles linked by List of animals displaying homosexual behavior to mention the homosexual behavior of those animals, because the subject may be notable in the parent article but not in the articles it links to. Baileypalblue (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • exactly, this list is 'opinion' not notably 'documented anatomical fact', therefore as you suggest, there is certainly reason to believe that list is non "sourceable"--Tallard (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to hymen. Not really sourced reliably enough so we can give this information as a definate list. But interesting in article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nominator, not sourced = delete. JBsupreme (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Can easily be written in a few sentences and added to the Hymens in other animals section of the hymen article. -Atmoz (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge to hymen. Failing that, delete.
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)
    • Merge with hymen. The list is short enough to be merged, and contains no context or anything else to suggest why this is notable enough to justify a breakout list. If this had dozens of items, I might consider differently, although with dozens of items it might have become even less notable. I have no objection to the sourcing; The Straight Dope is an internationally-syndicated column and it's a violation of WP:NPOV to disqualify it simply because of a perception of the type of column it is. Also, the writer of the column got the information from somewhere. 23skidoo (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The "web blog" (FWIW, Scarleteen is not a blog) reference mentioned by Tallard, while not a scientific paper, is an interview with the author of a book on the cultural, historical, and physiological aspects of virginity. It would be much preferred to reference the book itself, and even better, the original sources referenced by that book; I have placed a comment in this article's discussion page asking for help with this. The article gives no indication of how inclusive the list is, or what the criteria for inclusion are, but this calls for improvement, not deletion. The Hymen article already contains a couple of sentences on the subject, and the complete(?) list would not improve that section. At its most extreme, this list and its TOC entry took up over 30% of the vertical length of this [old revision of the Hymen article]. The main purpose of this article is to keep the entire list out of that one, so deletion is preferable to merging. [Vested Interested Disclaimer: I did not create this article, but I removed the long list from the Hymen article, and have tried to ride herd on the recurring vandalism to the list by reverting unsourced additions (mainly "slugs" and "beavers").] -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • the list is not about cultural assumptions of hymens in other species, it's pretense is scientific in nature, therefore only a modern anatomical textbook reference is of any value.--Tallard (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hanne Blank was the co-editor of Scarleteen, it's practically her own personal blog, and her statement on hymens is her own non-scientific prejudiced opinion. She is by no means a notable or acceptable source on anatomy.--Tallard (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hanne Blank is the author of (among other things) the book "Virgin: The Untouched History", which according to reviews is a "thoroughly researched" book, the first half of which deals with "bio-medical aspects". A reference to the book itself is a much preferred source than an interview with the author, and even better would be the primary sources cited in the book. There is no question that this article does need improvement. (I am geographically isolated, without access to anything that doesn't come down a wire, but I am seeking help from someone with access to a university library.) [Regarding the name-calling, nobody is claiming that Scarleteen is a scientific journal, but it is a sex education site targeted at teens and young adults. It is as disingenuous to refer to it as a blog as it is to refer to The Straight Dope as a gossip column. Neither are desirable primary sources, but both are guides to further research. And yes, Hanne Blank is a significant contributor to the site, with her name associated with approximately one percent of the sites 29,000 pages, but that hardly makes it her personal blog.] -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Snipits of Blank's book appear on google's book search, and page 23 includes the same list of animals mentioned in the interview. It is unclear if any reference is provided. The list is followed by the interesting comment "Compared to some of the others that exist, the human hymen is nothing ...". It is possible, depending on definitions and criteria for inclusion, that humans don't even belong on this list. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • ... and I have updated this article's reference list, replacing the Scarleteen interview with Blank (2007). (And yes, Tallard, this is not an anatomy text, but it is a step in the right direction, and if we don't find a reference to a primary source in the book I will contact the author.) -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete are we assuming virgin animals or do we take Shamu off the list if she does the nasty? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Argument Against Merging. The list exists in support of the Hymens in other animals section of the Hymen article. This section will have to be edited upon deletion of this list (for removal of the link), and at that time the editors can decide amongst themselves whether the article would be improved by inclusion of the complete(?) list. A "merge" will be viewed as an administrative request for inclusion. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The sourcing is inadequate, in my opinion, to support the article. Equally, it's too weak for the material to be merged into Hymen. Tim Ross (talk) 17:31, 19 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 Speedily Deleted by User:Jimfbleak as A7. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CAPS Australia[edit]

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

    Non notable, possibly promotional. Distributor of industrial items in Australia with multiple locations. Otherwise no claims to notability. LH (talk) 07:51, 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. MBisanz talk 03:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Two Coats of Paint[edit]

    Two Coats of Paint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • This article fails WP:WEB; I checked out all the external links in the page, and they didn't provide in-depth coverage on the blog, most were just mentions of it. Moreover, this article doesn't really talk about the blog itself but the author of the blog. I attempted to find in-depth coverage, but could only find mentions and brief summaries of the blog's content. Killiondude (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't delete the entry. This entry is a test entry. I'm trying to create an "art blog" section in wikipedia, but it's difficult to find non-blog sources to verify blogs' notability. Mainstream media sources, which aren't always blog-friendly, are hard to come by. Kind of a Catch-22. I'll take another stab at it, add some more info about the blog itself, and try to address your concerns. Thanks for the feedback.
      --willivich 16:17, 11 January 2009 User:24.215.230.190
      • I'm not really sure what you meant by "test entry". If this is truly a test page, then it will fall under "speedy deletion" criteria, and it will definitely be deleted. Would you care to clarify what you meant? Killiondude (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Speedy delete per CSD G2 since this is a test page only. In the future, use the sandbox for test pages...or your own user page. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: changing my vote; OK...it's not really a test page, but it's still not notable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I'm not sure what the author meant by 'test page' but this doesn't really look like one to me. It looks like the start of an article on a somewhat-notable blog. The reviews listed may be brief, but I think they rise above the level of trivial, so this seems to be a keep to me. JulesH (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In the criteria for web material, the third bullet point down on the first criteria states, "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." So it defines one part of "trivial coverage" as "a brief summary". So multiple sources that only give brief summaries are essentially multiple trivial sources. Just a thought. Killiondude (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I didn't mean "test page," but rather the "Two Coats of Paint" page is the first in a series of pages I am creating for art blogs. As a newer user, I'm unfamiliar with the specific meanings for Wiki veterans, and I mistakenly called it a "test page." Willivich (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well--actually I didn't create this one, but I've been helping edit it. Willivich (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I realized you're a new(er) user, and that's why I asked for your clarification. In any case, the page needs to be referenced from reliable sources, that give more than just brief summaries, in order to establish notability. Killiondude (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is an excerpt, pasted from the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources: "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND. How reliable a source is depends on CONTEXT." To explain the creator's goal in creating the blog, I used a quote from the blog creator herself, which appeared in an essay posted on the blog. It seems to me, when discussing blogs and writing Wikipedia entries for them, you have to be willing to use blog materials as reliable sources, particularly when they are maintained by experienced journalists. It's ironic that Wikipedia dismisses this type of online material as unreliable given that Wikipedia is also an online project maintained primarily by volunteers with no expertise in the subject matter they are discussing. You also have to take into consideration blogs' relationship with mainstream media when gathering reliable sources. As newspapers fold, will Wikipedia continue to consider unemployed journalists, who may begin to maintain blogs, reliable sources?Willivich (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:SPS. Wikipedia tries not to use "self published sources" which includes blogs, as references. Killiondude (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - fails notability, blogs are not regarded as reliable sources either. --HighKing (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. "blogs are not regarded as reliable sources" Note that all blogs are NOT of equal quality. The best, maintained by professionals, should certainly be considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Times are changing, and Wikipedia's policies need to reflect the new environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willivich (talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: per nom. Clearly fails WP:WEB. Not notable. -- 128.97.244.65 (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all of the above (those supporting deletion). Sources fail WP:RS. Fails WP:WEB. - 68.183.104.7 (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak keep I think it would be better to make the subject of the article the writer instead of her blog. There are more sources to back her notability than there are for her blog Two Coats of Paint. The Brooklyn Rail is read by thousands of people online and in print. Either way I think the Culture Pundits info should be removed. It is just an ad network that art bloggers join in order to earn money from ads that the site places for them. So there is really no reason to mention Culture Pundits other than to drive traffic to other blogs in the Culture Pundits network. It comes off looking like a promotion for Culture Pundits. The link to Culture Pundits is not necessary. Artblogs (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete - I don't see any notability for this blog. The "references" don't strike me as particularly good, and I couldn't find any to help out the situation. Jlg4104 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • some clean up I removed parts of the article that read like an add. I took out some of the bio info in order to focus more on the blog itself. Artblogs (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Clearly fails WP:WEB. Not notable. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 17:09, 19 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 03:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oil megaprojects (2020)[edit]

    Oil megaprojects (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete. Topic already covered in Oil Megaprojects; the idea of spinning it off per year of production is quite frankly ridiculous, especially considering the small amount of information on offer. Ironholds (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There will be more info for the year 2020. If you look at Oil Megaprojects for 2008 - 2015, you will see that there are many records listed by year. Tonyeriksen (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete It is not WP's job to predict the future. Redddogg (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      It isn't? Well damn, there goes the 'US Election 2044' page I was working on. Ironholds (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see second paragraph; "Individual items from a predetermined list...are not suitable article topics"), nor is it an indiscriminate collection of statistics. This is listcruft. Noir (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge back into Oil Megaprojects. One article for all of these is fine. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Not really valid; all the content already exists there. The creation of this page was basically a page split rather than the creation of new content. Ironholds (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The content of this new page is all new and includes 6 projects so far. The creation of this page was not a page split as there were no previously listed projects for the year 2020. In particular the 200,000 barrels per day contribution from the Chicontepec basin is not only a new supply addition record but it is critical to offsetting Mexican oil production declines from other fields such as Cantarell. The total cost of the Chicontepec project is estimated to be $US30 billion http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0543390520090105. Future oil production from Chicontepec is very important to the Mexican economy and also potentially provides oil exports to the USA. The Chicontepec field also has its own WP entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicontepec. The reason that one page per year is done for the Oil Megaprojects is that it gives a uniform structure and allows web pages to be a reasonable length. For example, Oil megaprojects (2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_megaprojects_(2008) has about 60 projects supported by 137 references. Tonyeriksen (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      You seem to be missing the point; there are not enough projects for 2020 yet. There will probably be more announced over the next few years, but keeping this page around on that chance is pointless. wikipedia is not a crystal ball; if and when those new projects are announced the page can be recreated. 2008 had 60 megaprojects, yes, but we are not debating the deletion of that page. Other Stuff Exists is not a valid argument in an AfD. Ironholds (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Tonyeriksen. This is not "crystal ballery", it's documentation of largescale projects that are currently planned to start producing at a certain time. Given the significance of long-term planning in energy infrastructure and analysis, it seems like a completely reasonable article. It's near enough in the future that documented planning and development is already going on.--ragesoss (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Potentially important for understanding Hubbert Peak Oil theory.Critical Chris (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      potentially important? See WP:CRYSTAL. Ironholds (talk) 20:30, 16 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 Dracula's Daughter. MBisanz talk 03:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandor (fictional character)[edit]

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

    Delete - previous CFD closed no consensus. Those in favor of keeping the article noted the "sources" that were added in the course of the AFD. To repeat my analysis of those sources: Two of the sources, Kane and Clute, merely confirm the existence of the character. The Benshoff reference is about two sentences out of a 328 page book and is used to identify the actor who played the character. The Humphries is also two sentences, out of a 224 page book. The Willis is a description of the character as "incredible-looking". The Leeper website has no indication of its reliability as a source and again is a single sentence. Our notability guideline specifically states that simple passing mentions of a subject in a larger work are insufficient to establish independent notability, and all of the "sources" held up as establishing the notability of this character separate from the single film in which he appears are simple passing mentions. In bringing the article Dracula's Daughter to Good Article status, I reviewed these six sources as well as dozens if not hundreds more and none of them mention this character beyond noting his existence. None of them establish any cultural impact of the character, none of them offer out-of-universe perspective, none of them indicate any scholarly or critical attention paid to the character, none of them say anything other than a variation on "Her assistant was named Sandor and he wasn't very nice." More than two months have gone by and no new sources have come to light to establish notability. Merging is unnecessary because "Sandor (fictional character)" is a highly improbable search string and there is nothing in this article that is not already covered in the film article. A simple note at Sandor (disambiguation) with a link to the film is more than sufficient. Otto4711 (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Minor character in a single mid-importance film does not warrant a separate article. Agree with nominator's rationale as to why a merge is unnecessary. JulesH (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Dracula's Daughter anything that isn't already covered there (I know the nominator says there isn't anything, but I'm just being certain). I agree adding a link on the disambiguation page works, and but this particular article title should be a redirect to that disambiguation and not to the movie article given I know of at least one other fictional character of the name (from the Bond film the Spy Who Loved Me). General consensus appears to be that one-time supporting characters don't warrent their own articles unless there is substantial coverage or if they are widely known (such as, say, Renault in Casablanca). 23skidoo (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't realize that. Changed my !vote. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are multiple fictional characters with the name Sandor, then maintaining this as a redirect creates ambiguity. The best solution IMHO is to list every such character on the existing dab page with a link back to the source of the character. Prompted searching gives Sandor as the first suggestion and Sandor (disambiguation) as the second. Keeping this as a third choice is unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirecting to a disambiguation creates ambiguity? --Explodicle (T/C) 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Someone looking for a specific fictional character named "Sandor" will be misled by a redirect called "Sandor (fictional character)". Otto4711 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pointing the user in the right direction is always preferable to sending them to the search page. If they're redirected to the disambiguation, they'll see multiple fictional Sandors listed, and pick the one they want. There is nothing confusing or misleading about that. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a discussion about either of those potential searches - it's about Sandor (fictional character). You might not think it's a likely search, but three of us do, and our inclusion guideline for redirects (WP:R#KEEP item #5) says that's enough. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point still stands unrefuted that both of those searches will appear before this one will. There is no point in maintaining this as a redirect because the suggested target will appear in a search before the redirect will. The purpose of redirects is to aid in navigation and this does not aid in navigation. And again, since there are multiple fictional characters named Sandor, keeping this is misleading. "Someone finds it useful" is IMHO a horrible standard. If I find, for example, Bad president a useful redirect to George W. Bush, should I be allowed to make it? If I find That guy in the Star Wars movies who grows up to be Darth Vader and is played by Hayden Christensen a useful redirect to Anakin Skywalker should I set it up? All kinds of things that someone somewhere found useful at least once get deleted at WP:RFD every day. Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's try to stay on topic; straw man arguments like "Bad president redirects to George W. Bush" aren't going to get us anywhere. I don't quite understand what you're saying - you know what people are going to type into the search box? --Explodicle (T/C) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that people looking for a fictional character named Sandor are going to type S-a-n-d-o-r into the search box, yes. And that will give them the prompts for Sandor (which will lead them to Sandor (disambiguation)) and they will also get the prompt for Sandor (disambiguation). Both of them come up before Sandor (fictional character) in a prompted search so, assuming the person is not a drooling idiot, s/he will select either Sandor or Sandor (disambiguation). Having a second redirect that serves no purpose but to send them back to a page that is prompted before the redirect is pointless. And I'm sorry, but my counter-examples are perfectly valid as examples of redirects that someone somewhere might find useful. Otto4711 (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have to keep in mind that not all users have a browser that supports that feature, but redirects don't care what browser you use. There's a good chance someone searching for the term might very well type in "Sandor (fictional character)" because they don't get a popup. Let's say we keep the redirect, and someone clicks on that prompt - they go to the disambiguation page, which tells them there are multiple fictional characters named "Sandor". Since you're making the assumption they are not a drooling idiot, they'll click on the link they want. --Explodicle (T/C) 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bad president" is offensive (WP:R#DELETE #3) and could just as easily point to any president of anything. The Darth Vader search is silly, much longer, and obviously less likely. --Explodicle (T/C) 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete all mentions apparently trivial, non-notable, and 70 years old. Agree with nom that merge is unneccesary. Salt for good measure (vampires are hard to kill).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in this case, I think this meets the exception of beings sufficiently widely known; it's furthermore a distinctive name, a reasonable search term, and an adequately sourced article article. DGG (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please refer to WP:N, which states that notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources". Note further that significant coverage means that "sources address the subject directly in detail" and that coverage is "more than trivial". Finally note that "one sentence mention[s]" in larger works are specifically noted as not establishing notability. In light of this, please explain how this article, which relies on one- and two-sentence mentions in multi-hundred page books, is "adequately sourced". Please also explain how something's having a "distinctive name? qualifies it for a Wikipedia article in the absence of reliable sources, with reference to the relevant policy or guideline. As for being a "reasonable search term", no one is going to type "Sandor (fictional character)" into the search box and even if they intended to, typing "Sandor (" would get them to Sandor (disambiguation) which would then link them to Dracula's Daughter. Otto4711 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please refer to WP:RFD#KEEP, which says that if someone finds a redirect useful, it should not be deleted. That you find it useless is irrelevant. DHowell (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please refer to my comments up-thread, in which it is demonstrated that someone somewhere could find any possible redirect "useful" and that this is not a barrier to deleting redirects per WP:RFD. Otto4711 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep, or merge and redirect to Dracula's Daughter. I don't think it should redirect to Sandor (disambiguation), as there is only one fictional character mentioned in that disambiguation page. Also, there is more information from reliable sources than what is included in the article; for example the fact that Herbert Marshall was the first choice to play this role in the film; see here and here. Verifiable information on possibly non-notable subtopics of a notable topic should be at least merged, not deleted. DHowell (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That there may be a sentence or two in other sources beyond the four or five sentences already sourced does not establish notability. A handful of one sentence mentions do not equal "significant coverage". Otto4711 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as article meets our notability guidelines by being verified in multiple published reliable secondary sources that contain significant enough out of universe information to write sections on Scholary intepretation, Reception, and Comparison to other characters as confirmed by Google News, Google Books (even mentioned in the published book titled The Encyclopedia of Fantasy as well as at least one other published encyclopedia, what is good for a paper encyclopedia is surely good for us as after all our First pillar is that we contain elements of specialized encyclopedias), Google Scholar, and Amazon.com. Article has accordingly improved considerably since it was first nominated a short time ago: compare here. A good number of editors and readers think the article is a valid search term that is worth checking out and worth editing. As the article is neither a copywright violation nor libelous, there is no pressing or serious need to delete its edit history. A merge can and should be discussed on the article's talk page. Even if Dracula's Daughter is a good article that still does not somehow preclude coverage of its characters in separate articles. We can have an article on a film about Dracula, but the character is still sufficiently notable for a separate article as well. While obviously Sandor is not Dracula, he is still covered in out of universe context in multiple publications and is thus worthy of expanded coverage in a separate article. I reckon others can probably even do more with the article than I was able to, but again, even if one wants to make a case for a merge and/or redirect, I am not see a compelling case for a redlink or serious need to delete the article's good faith edit history. Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:57, 19 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, per WP:SNOW. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Grade I listed buildings in North Yorkshire[edit]

    List of Grade I listed buildings in North Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a very unwieldy, unmaintainable list that would be much better off as a series of categories (and in fact it's already duplicating Category:Grade I listed buildings in North Yorkshire). Most of the buildings listed don't appear to have articles, and there appears to be only one reference for the whole list. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep A category can't contain redlinks, and this list can encourage article creation by showing what is missing. The list itself technically doesn't need to be references (unless it was hoping to become a featured list, for example), as the article would contain a reference. Also, is it a fair assumption to say that any building that is a Grade I Listed building is notable? Lugnuts (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The list currently contains no sources and as it stands it will be impossible to properly source this article for verification. Furthermore, this list violates WP:IINFO as the topic is too broad for the list to pass our notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Each of he buildings listed is inherently notable - is considered to be " "buildings of exceptional interest".[1] In England, the authority for listing under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990[2] rests with English Heritage, a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport." The list can be added to with further details of year, architect, location etc as I'm doing with List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset and several lists which started in the same state are now featured lists eg Grade I listed buildings in Bristol & Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester. They serve a different function to categories which only show those Garde I buildings with articles.— Rod talk 08:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Lugnuts and Rod. The redlinks included in this list cannot be included in categories and one reference is enough to confirm the status of the buildings. It's like the NRHP. You only need to link to the institution to confirm the place is on the list and there is ample chance for expansion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - perfectly "maintainable" as new listings are not particularly frequent. Useful compilation, going beyond what can be included in categories. The featured list at Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester shows the way forward - the existing list is the bare bones and has potential to be expanded along similar lines. PamD (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Helpful list of notable buildings. I'm not sure I understand User:Themfromspace's concerns that "it will be impossible to properly source this article for verification". All of these buildings are on the national list of listed buildings, which is available for public inspection at National Monuments Record, Kemble Drive, Swindon. I believe this source meets the requirements of WP:V. JulesH (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As per PamD above.--Harkey (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My concern with this article's sourcing is that a potential user wouldn't know if any and all of the buildings on this list are really Grade I listed buildings in North Yorkshire. Listing a source at the bottom of a list this long does nothing for verification of the individual entries of the list. To check that a building is really Grade I listed, a user would have to root around on the listed source. Wikipedia should serve as more than a redirect to the official source. There's no adequate sourcing to say that these buildings are really Grade I listed. To a discerning user looking for sourcing, this article provides little to no help and unless all of these buildings are verified as being Grade I listed. I can see no point of having this article around as its length and breadth combined with minimal to non-existant sourcing isn't helpful or encyclopedic. Themfromspace (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't understand this. Any individual building on the list can be easily verified. I've also added a link at the bottom of the article to National Heritage's search engine, which should be able to pull up detailed information for most if not all of these buildings. Certainly the ones I tested it with came up. I also understand that the relevant county/city councils can provide copies of the list of buildings in their area. This seems to present no issue of verifiability to me. JulesH (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although, it may be worth actually verifying this list, rather than just being theoretically able to do so. One of the random tests I just ran to try to determine whether all the areas listed had their buildings included turned up an entry that was Grade II, not Grade I.[23] I've removed that entry, but this is somewhat concerning about the accuracy of the rest of the list. JulesH (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually Grade I. IoE was out of date and I hadn't yet updated the reference to include the English Heritage Gateway. I have now. I'll add individual references in time.Major-General Clanger (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does, however, appear that all the regions included in the list have their lists in the search database (which I'm led to believe lacks data for some regions). The anomaly I describe above is the only one of around 15 searches I've run that has been incorrectly listed. JulesH (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note the lists can also include grade A churches which are not searchable as a separate category on the source database. Grade A is the old designation for Grade I for those churches that have not been recategorised as yet. Keith D (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The list is finite as it lists all currently listed on the source specified as that is where is was derived from. It forms part of a series of lists for England, one per county. The lists have recently been created and are in the process of being improved. Grade I listed buildings in Bristol is a featured list which is the aim for the series of lists but they all have to start somewhere. Keith D (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per KeithD's comments about there being a finite number of items that can go in the list. This should be a good, useful resource for both readers and editors, and will be an excellent addition to WP almost-instinct 13:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - useful for both information and navigation. (and probably construction) WilyD 14:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The list is useful, contains inherently notable items, and would be more useful if it were sourced more. In fact, this AfD should be a wake-up call to those who feel strongly that the list should be kept to work quickly to source it. But the lack of sources should not determine whether it is kept or deleted. Finally, a list and category have differing functions, and so one cannot make simple arguments playing one off against the other in the way some have done so far.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I hate to say this but that wake up call could apply to most of the lists at Category:Lists of Grade I listed buildings in England by county & the amount of work in doing that is enormous - I've already spend at least 6 hrs on List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset & it still has a long way to go - multiply this by all the counties & a lot of editors would do nothing else for a long while!— Rod talk 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I know, it is a big job, but we have to start somewhere, and dealing with articles that crop up here where mention is made of the lack of sources is one way of determining a strategy for choosing which ones to deal with first. It merely highlights the problems of allowing articles to be written in which the appropriate verification is not added at the point of adding the material: an often fatal mistake well known to anyone who has had experience of writing up anything that can be challenged on grounds of evidence and suchlike. However, as I said, I don't think it should be a big argument counting in favour of the article being deleted in this case.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep But I would say that wouldn't I. I've produced the equivalent list for every county in England. There is no other source on the Internet for these lists (except my flickr group). There is, however - new this month - the Heritage Gateway site which allows easy verification, and I am checking all the pages and updating them with the new reference - as alluded to above this is not quick work. It is not true that the article has 'no' sources - I will add individual references in due course but for now they can all be checked against the reference given. The topic is absolutely not "too broad" - this is the official list of the most important buildings in England.
    I have also added dozens of buildings to the categories as I discovered them by wikifying the lists. Two or three lists already existed - at least one of which Grade I listed buildings in Bristol is a featured list, so you'd have to delete that too. And while you're about it you'd have to question the featured lists for "tallest buildings in Chicago" etc etc. I intend to modify the lists to match the same format as the featured lists but decided to start with stub lists to provide the most useful information - which buildings are Grade I (i.e. the 6000 officially 'most important' buildings in England).
    The flickr group I mentioned has 4000 pictures, many of which the owners will be willing to license for inclusion in these articles. Rod has already picked up the baton and is planning to write many new articles based on his local list - I will doing the same for Wiltshire, at least. Even where there is not immediate scope for a full article, linkage can be made to a section in an article on a village.
    I don't need a wake up call - just a few hundred more hours :-)Major-General Clanger (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The list should be improved with information such as dates of completion and architect names, however the fact that an article is in need of improvement is nowhere near reason enough to delete it. King of the North East 20:12, 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. kurykh 00:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    -land[edit]

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

    Delete Previously prodded, prod removed. Article is a list of places that end with -land. This groups articles together by an arbitrary distinction; that is, that contain in them a Germanic cognate. Wikipedia is not only not a dictionary, but we would certainly not expect the French Wikipedia to have a list article on "-terre", which serves much the same purpose. (England (originally Angleland) and l'Angleterre for "land of the Angles"). The article -stan has the same problem, but should be nominated separately depending on the outcome of this discussion. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 06:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Or Move per Baileypalblue below. I feel it is dubious whether or not this serves as a useful list; however, if the community sees a place for List of place names ending in -land, it is definitely preferable to -land as it stands. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Non-notable intersection of Category:Toponymy and a suffix. The list also doesn't seem to really know what it's about. The lead paragraph states that the list is of "place names", but there are Countries, States and Islands mixed in with Places (see Place (United States Census Bureau) for the definition I'm assuming is meant). Then suddenly we're offered some geographical terms and a link to a surname. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In an international encyclopedia Place (United States Census Bureau) is probably not the correct source for a controlling definition of "place name". Baileypalblue (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I referenced that article because it matches my understanding of "place name" from my New Zealand perspective. It also seems to match the UK definition, but that isn't as easy to reference as it's a passing reference on the place disambiguation page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maker's comment: I just want to say that the article was created with the -stan (and other articles in the Category:Suffixes, like -ovo/-evo) that you aforementioned in mind. I would say that the order of deletion process should be in terms of which article was created first, in this case, I only agree that -land should not become a Wikipedia article if the article that it inspired from - -stan - could not stand to the trial. But I would not contest any further since I realized this is a totally different ball play from my home Wikipedia. What would you say CaveatLector, if the list is separated into several segment, and that article only for disambiguation: [[List of places in <country name> with "-land" suffix]]? Bennylin (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I'm still not sure what encyclopedic purpose this would serve. Does the collection of places names that end with the word -land (which is not a suffix, anymore than -ball is a suffix in sports) provide a pragmatic or interesting piece of information? In fact, I have the same generic problem with most of the articles in Category:Suffixes. Not the least because WP is not a dictionary. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Neutral I'm not sure we can judge what fr.wikipedia will consider worthy of inclusion at some point, besides, that is irrelevant to what we on en.wikipedia decide to include. I agree that as a list this article isn't really working, as it's scope is very wide. Lack of focus is not a good reason to delete though, as that can be changed and criteria tightened up. Places called X Island should not be included, for instance. The article might work if it wasn't a list but instead a proper toponymical article, however it might need a little more time to be developed into that and an expert may be required. Perhaps consider userfying if Bennylin wants time to work this into something more encyclopedic. (nb. The Oxford Dictionary of British Place Names says 'land' is of Old Scandinavian origin</pedant>) sassf (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. Can I, as the article starter, modify that article, even though it's currently under deletion nomination or do I have to wait for the result? I just want to improve it based on the discussion above (and possibly below), without, of course, removing the delete tag. Bennylin (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can work on the article to improve it at any time. sassf (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are some advantages to a reverse lookup, where the items are arranged by a common suffix. For obvious reasons, normal alphabetical order (which would distinguish between Fort Payne and Fort Pierce, or New Britain and New Brunswick) doesn't work for that purpose. Based on that, I think it's a legitimate topic that might require a different name. Mandsford (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The reverse look-up point is interesting, but wouldn't it take forever to make that useful? Wouldn't you have to do it with all endings, including those pointing to smaller units such as regions and towns and neighborhoods? (-shire, -wich, wick, -ton, -town, etc.). Plus, I'm not sure I see what could possibly be useful about reading such a list. I think this is just impossibly confounded as an encyclopedia article, but I'm not saying 'delete' just yet, because I haven't formulated my thoughts on lists yet. Jlg4104 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This list could be organized better, and have some more discriminating information, but if a person was trying to figure out the difference between Nordland, Ørland and Hordaland in Norway, this could be a better navigation tool. Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and move to List of place names ending in -land per naming conventions in WP:LIST. The rationale identified by User: Mandsford satisfies the purposes of lists criteria mentioned in WP:LIST, particularly Navigation and Development. Similar lists like -stan need similar page moves; -land, -stan, etc. would be reserved for articles about -land, -stan etc. which are probably not notable. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as an organizational device. That';s enough of a justification for lists like this. The suggestion made above by Jlg4104 that this be done for other name elements is a very good one. It doesn't take forever to get started, as we improve articles gradually. This is an ongoing project. DGG (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as useless. Wikipedia is not an arbitrary collection of information. Ending in "land" is not a meaningful category for research or organizational purposes - it's no more helpful than List of cities that end in ington. (Washington, Arlington, Wilmington, etc) This sounds like a category from SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy - colors that end in "urple". --B (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Followup. Based on the above discussion here's what I did: I moved the article in question (-land) to -land (disambiguation) along with its deletion tag (I don't know if that's proper or not, please correct me if it's not), and wrote a stub that might be merged to Land in -land. The disambiguation could be further divided into several articles

    Comment I'm correcting you -- it's not proper. I'm sure that you meant well, but unless you're the closing administrator, you can't really decide for all of the participants based on your own interpretation of the discussion. Changing a title is okay during a debate, but erasing the old article beyond reversion is not. Mandsford (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Now I see the havoc that I created. Hopefully an admin could delete the current -land and move -land (disambiguation) back to -land. Bennylin (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's done. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 18 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 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle royale (urban game)[edit]

    Battle royale (urban game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable alternate reality game from a university. No third-party references to assert notability and I didn't find any sources after Googling it. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw* 05:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with the article on the novel or the movie, as this is based upon those. I don't see indication of independent notability, but it doesn't hurt to mention it within the articles on the original source material. 23skidoo (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete please don't merge non-notable non-trivia that exists as a student prank, with no coverage in any reliable sources and otherwise has failed to establish even a scintalla of notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Non-notable game. Schuym1 (talk) 23:29, 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 keep. While there is some discussion on whether this should be kept, redirected or reworded, all commenters have unanimously agreed on the idea that the material should remain in some form so there's no deletion to discuss. Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Watson and Crick[edit]

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

    This should be a redirect, if anything. The article has existed since 2004 and has not become anything more than a stub. It should be redirected to Watson, Crick, or what they discovered. I don't think this article has a hope of having any content that's not more suited to any of those three articles. Firestorm (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge and redirect to Base pair (which currently makes no mention of the duo). The article could be expanded with details of the partnership, but that would be redundant to the individual biographies. bd2412 T 05:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • At the very least it should be reverted to a redirect to Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid or something (such as suggested above), which would involve a talk page discussion rather than an AfD. This was brought up at its previous VfD (back when there was such a thing) years ago. At the time there was no appropriate article to redirect it to, now that there is a redirect suits me, though should probably be discussed further. Whatever the result, it should not be deleted, as it is a viable search term that should yield some sort of useful result. -R. fiend (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It's basically an atypical disambiguation page (and maybe should be explicitly labeled as such), since "Watson and Crick" can refer to several related things, none of which are entirely appropriate as just a redirect. From early 2008 to today, this was being redirect to Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid, but people who search for "Watson and Crick" may not be looking for that article. They may be looking for Watson-Crick base pairing (aka, base pair), or the biographies of Watson and of Crick (maybe they don't know the first names), or an account of their work together (which consists of more than just the article on their famous paper, especially since they published other work together). I could even envision a full-fledged article, since their work together has been analyzed so much specifically as collaboration, rather than in the context of either one or the other, or the consequences of their work. But even as it is, it serves its purpose better than any particular redirect would.--ragesoss (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but at stub-ish level and keep most info on the separate Watson and Crick pages. I see this as a disambiguation page with more info, but I think it's important because rarely is one referenced without the other, and I couldn't see redirecting this to either name. FlyingToaster 05:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in some form. This is a likely search term, and the current article is a pretty good navigational aid. Zagalejo^^^ 05:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from nom. I'd be in favour of turning it into a sort of atypical disambig page listing things that people might be looking for, includng the articles on those two individuals and any work that they were responsible for.
    • Convert to Disambiguation page Need I say more? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as the phrase is the one in general use for their work together, making it a likely search term. I don't know whether this would mean improving the page to describe the whole collaboration (?duplicated somewhere else) or making it more obviously a DAB to the biographies. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This pairing is drilled into students' heads in secondary schools. It is highly likely they'd type that into the search box. I agree with FlyingToaster and Zagaelejo. Killiondude (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The form of the page can be discussed, but I agree with the others that deletion is not an option. It's basically a disambiguation for a reasonable search term (this is indeed drilled into students who follow related courses. It wouldn't be too weird to assume they don't know their first names or the exact title of the pages about their work. Both are extremely lengthy and have punctuation that makes finding the relevant articles harder. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - we're trying to write a useful reference work here ... WilyD 14:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this is a no-brainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: The article should be kept in some form, as a very common search term. Anything but deletion would be appropriate. Possibly should be converted into an 'atypical disambiguation' page, as the nominator suggested above. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Suitable pairing. Reasonable search term. Author paid combinations are used here when significant enough. Obviously not every possible joint authorship, but this is about the best knonw one imaginable. DGG (talk) 05:17, 16 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 Fred Weintraub. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's Showtime (film)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    It's Showtime (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • okay... Mgm got me thinkning... so I just spent some time to expand and source the Fred Weintraub article. How best to do a merge? !!!!
    • Merge and/or redirect: not sufficiently notable on its own. JamesBurns (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After exanding the director's article, I included the It's Showtime informations. Nicely too. Effectively a suitable merge. I now rescind my "keep". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can an independent admin close this. Since it is now merged and sourced, I don't see a valid reason for deletion anymore. - Mgm|(talk) 01:44, 18 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 02:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Geoff Price[edit]

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

    Non-notable college athlete. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. ZimZalaBim talk 02:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • In light of new debate, I'd rather not opine either way. Boston (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Quickly added four references from independent sources: ESPN, Sports Illustrated, USA Today, NY Times... player has plenty of notability in the media, but the article does need to be updated as it appears to be a few seasons behind.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately I find these passing mentions of one of his kicks trivial, and not satisfying of WP:BIO. It is far from "significant coverage". --ZimZalaBim talk 16:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Weak Delete None of these articles do anything for notability except the one that states that he was a Ray Guy Award finalist. That makes him notable, not all these articles that mention he had a punt in a game.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading Mitico's research, I have moved to delete. He is right on with his interpretation of the objectives of WP:ATHLETE.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, the citation (an ND press release) indicates he was "one of ten semi-finalists chosen from a list of 47 punters that were originally nominated", not a finalist. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, semi-finalist. But top ten in the nation I think makes one notable.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then your reading of WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE differs from mine. Being in the to 21% (10/47) doesn't seem particularly notable at all to me. --ZimZalaBim talk 06:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the original 47 were chosen from 121 teams in the BCS, giving you roughly 8% (assuming one punter per team). Mitico (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, but still, we're talking about being a semi-finalist for a punter award, not a finalist for the Heisman. Doesn't seem sufficient to be notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete Originally I was inclined to keep, because I thought that this article had potential for notability, especially if he were to "go pro". As this point, notability is hanging on a thread of a top 10 punter semi-finalist award nomination. However, as a senior, though he was expected "to take over as punter" according to SI, he was platooned later in the season due to inconsistency & injury. Though NFL teams gave him a tryout, he never made it out of minicamp. I believe these are the kind of articles that WP:Athlete is trying to avoid: "XXXX was a college athlete for XXXX notable program, and now is a junior financial analyst at XXXX". Though 100 times better than the billion soccer articles and many other articles, I don't believe Price meets the notability requirements at current. Mention of Price & award in 2006 ND football article is sufficient. Mitico (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep - Per the above. Hogvillian (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - College athlete playing at a major program like Notre Dame, which is probably the most historic program in the country, warrants a keep. The fact that he was a starter, and a nominee for the top punter in the country makes him an even stronger candidate. GoCuse44 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - so you honestly think that every player on ND's roster deserves an encyclopedia article, simply because they play for "a major program"? Such a position certainly isn't supported by WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per WP:ATHLETE, competed at the highest level of amateur athletics (NCAA Division I). — X96lee15 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, He played at the highest level of amateur sports and a semi-finalist of a major national award.09er (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • COmment I think both of you are mis-reading WP:ATHLETE, as since football is also a professional sport, that means a player needs to play at that "highest level". Otherwise, all NCAA Div 1 athletes would get articles (every single wrestler, diver, lacrosse player, etc), which clearly isn't the intent of WP:ATHLETE. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think you can say it "clearly isn't the intent of WP:ATH" as it's written quite ambiguously at this point. Also, I wouldn't have a problem with every Div I athlete having an article either. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI respectfully disagree on your view. It states “People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport…” not “People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport that does not have a professional equivalent…” I am not one that say that every College football player should have an article but we are talking about a player that was up for a national award that plays for Notre Dame not a division-3 second stringer. - 09er (talk) 18:11, 19 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 20:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of autological words[edit]

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

    How is this useful? At the moment it is ridiculously short compared to what one would expect (about half of all adjectives in the English language, by gross approximation), and even if it was complete, what good would it do? Furthermore, there aren't going to be any reliable sources for whether a given word is autological, so this will degenerate into original research (that may have already happened). Thinboy00 @134, i.e. 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No reliable sources, original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Already present in longer form on Wiktionary, where it belongs, as wikt:Appendix:Autological words. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Autological word already links to wiktionary were it's covered in more detail. And a list of words without anything but a definition is not part of Wikipedia's job. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. The explanations which the article uses to justify inclusion of its entries would all have to go as OR, and it's hard to believe that any discriminate list of such words could be backed up by reliable sourcing. Three years after the first AfD, and no such sourcing exists in the article. Baileypalblue (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and definitely no merge. There are links from the parent article that handle this concept much better. This article appears to be the results of a word-game that the different editors have played. Basically, an autological word is an adjective where you can truthfully say " 'X" is an X word", like "'Real' is a real word" or "'Common' is a common word". One might as well make a list of 52 things that they'll see when they play solitaire. Mandsford (talk) 21:08, 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 A7 the band and A9 their album. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Paper Covers Rock[edit]

    Paper Covers Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The band does not appear to have been covered by multiple reliable secondary sorucesGoogle News so does not pass the notability criteria for bands. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also nominating the following page because it appears to be a duplicate of Paper Covers Rock. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Aco Records[edit]

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

    I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. This is a record label that only re-released records. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 23:45, 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) 01:03, 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, MBisanz talk 02:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect to Aeolian Records/Vocalion Records.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 05:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's not surprising Schuym1 can't find references. This label is pre-internet era and sources are not likely to be online. I've asked Infrogmation to share his sources and I encourage everyone to do the same in similar situations. Only after the original author fails to share their sources should deletion become an option. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 16 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 01:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Terrorists, Killers and Middle-East Wackos[edit]

    Terrorists, Killers and Middle-East Wackos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Lots of bittorent links on Google, but no reliable sources that would indicate encyclopedic notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge To Bud Dwyer or Bum fights article. Enough notability to be included in existing articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Ledenierhomme (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge I've cited the rejection of the film by the BBFC, which makes it notable in a UK context, as few non-porn films are, while it is also being used as an example of the online content the Board suggests should be rated in the UK. That said, there probably isn't enough to justify a page in it's own right, so a merge with Bumfights would be most appropriate. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable cruft. It doesn't seem like an article of any noteworthiness LOTRrules Talk Contribs 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I don't think the article is of any value, the article doesn't contain many citations, if it were to kept it would need to be made more reliable. afkatk (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More citations does not equal more reliable. If it's referenced by reliable sources it is reliable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have worded what I meant to say better but that is basically what I meant by adding more citations. --afkatk (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I agree with Nick that the fact it wasn't given a license in the UK is notable since it is such a rare event. Merging to Bumfights seems inappropriate since they only have the makers in common and the films aren't actually part of the same series. It's solid stub article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: agree with Mgm's reasoning here. JamesBurns (talk) 03:17, 19 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 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Peggy Jean[edit]

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

    Only appeared in two minor storylines, no secondary sources found. Doesn't seem worth the merge since it's probably not the only Peggy Jean in the world. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Peggy Jean is a fictional character in the comic strip Peanuts." So it makes more sense to me to propose a merge. The comic is notable. The character has some notable. It's a question of whether she should have her own article, not whether to delete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is never inherited though. I proposed deletion since I thought she was too obscure for a merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Never say never. Bands with a notable member are considered notable per WP:MUSIC, so your assumption fails on at least one count. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 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. MBisanz talk 02:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of bodyguards[edit]

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

    This article has no hope of being encyclopedic. At one extreme, it could be a non-exhaustive list of bodyguards notable in popular culture or literature--this would be extremely subjective and uninteresting. At the other extreme, it could be a directory of all bodyguards who have some indicia of notability (invariably, the tendency would for non-notable bodyguards of notable individuals to be included). In its current form (as in all imaginable forms), it is a hodgepodge of trivia, not suited for an encyclopedia. Bongomatic 00:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It needs work, but it could turn out to be a useful and interesting article. It's not much different from other occupation-based lists such as List of chefs or List of physicians. To start with, I'd advise splitting the article into sections for real bodyguards and fictional characters and removing the non-notable entries. But there are plenty of notable bodyguards with their own articles on this list - no reason to delete. Graymornings(talk) 01:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the list should be limited to those with WP articles, then a category would do the job (and better). Bongomatic 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists should be limited to notable members of such lists. WP:SAL "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Those reasonably expected articles are one reason why lists are useful. Another reason is mentioned by Mgm below. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We have clear guidelines on lists WP:CLN. Lists and directories are two entirely different things. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This article seems to me to be a directory. We could have articles on veterinarians in New Jersey, and electricians in California, and paper companies, but those are all subjects that seem to be directory related rather than encyclopedic. An article on body guards would be fine. A list of the types of bodyguard companies (if there were sources for such a thing) would be okay. But a list of bodyguards? I don't think so. Why isn't there a list of dog trainers? Massage therapists? Dog walkers? But I've been wrong before... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have a list of veterinarians, though I don't know if any of them are in New Jersey. In addition, Dog trainer mentions three notable dog trainers. DHowell (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per having other lists of things. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Obviously un-encyclopedic. Ledenierhomme (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per nom Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This article is no different from other accepted "list of <profession>" lists (No, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't apply, because the other lists are accepted - in other words, not crap) and it's sorted by both background and nation. Categories can't do that without becoming too small, making this a viable list target. - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it is totally different from other such lists. I just started by typing "list of a" into the search box and got List of action film actors and List of action film directors. Those are simple lists of wikilinks to articles. If you think this article should be pared down to a list of actual people (not fictional characters, or owners of security companies, or security consultants who don't have the word "bodyguard" in their WP bio) without the editorializing or list of non-notable bodyguards of notable people, I would have no objection except that it would be a short (and not notable) list. There is no List of actuaries. Bongomatic 09:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The list can always be renamed to something like List of security personnel or something more suitable if this particular naming doesn't float your boat. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - encyclopaedic list, useful for information content and navigation. If you're looking for cleanup, you've come to the wrong place. WilyD 14:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete wikipedia isn't a directory, is supposed to encyclopedic, and encyclopedias shouldn't carry ill-defined and amorphous lists.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very Strong Keep-Politically notable and I'd like to see such executive protection topics linked up under the umbrella of a "Wikipedia Project Private Security/Private Military" which chronicles the efforts of the wealthy and politically powerful to try to use their fortunes to pay these highly trained commando-jockeys to protect themselves from the unwashed masses.Critical Chris (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unencyclopedic and has no research value. Tavix (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete bodyguards, members of security details, and on and on with no definable limit nor purpose, should someone cut and paste all members of the SS, SA, and others whom have later been termed Hitler's bodyguards? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they are notable for their role as Hitler's bodyguard, why shouldn't they be included? Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This imo is non-encyclopedic thus should be deleted afkatk (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep with the understanding that this is to be a list of real-world bodyguard, and that fictional figures would go in a separate list. I wasn't sure from the title there would be enough notable people to make a useful list, but I see from the article there are. This violates none of the list guidelines- DGG (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The list appears to be limited to notable bodyguards, as per the guideline for stand-alone lists of people. This is not an indiscriminate directory, but a list of notable people in a notable profession. Believing that "a category would do the job (and better)" is not a reason to delete a list; see WP:CLN. This list serves all three of the purposes of lists in Wikipedia: information, navigation, and development. DHowell (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, seems like a regular member of Category:Lists of people by occupation. Although not all bodyguards are notable, there are enough notable members to make a standalone list worthwhile. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 15:06, 17 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) -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Counterfeit Sovereign[edit]

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

    There's still no reason given in the article why the film is notable. If it were the first Greek film to meet some objective criterion, that might be different. Not all films need articles, and IMDB reviews are not reliable sources for notability. IMDB text may not be reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Withdraw. Thank's for the updated article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There are lots of Greek search results, and some English-language sources that refer to this as a classic, e.g., [28]. It's definitely notable, and being an underdeveloped stub is not reason enough to delete it.--ragesoss (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep - The film might barely pass the notability criteria for films as the "film features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Assuming that Dimitris Horn and George Tzavellas are notable, I think the film might be so to (barely). Also, there does appear to be some secondary sources available that are written in Greek. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Ragesoss. I'm don't like doing much of a "per user" person, however there was a pretty persuading point made. K50 Dude ROCKS! 03:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extreme Keep. I invite the nom to review the improved article, where I was able to source it being declared one of the top 10 all-time best Greek Films by the Greek Film Critics association. Hint: the correct English translation is "The Counterfeit Coin". That made the search a snap. After the clousure of this AfD,I will make the move to the new found title.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:39, 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 20:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A Metamorfose[edit]

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

    Article about a student film where in the only possible claim to notability is that it was screened at some notable foreign film festivals. Googling 'Metamorfose "Frederico Beja" -Wikipedia' (Beja is the director) yields 60 unique hits. (Note that Searching "A Metamorfose" is insufficient as it is the Portuguese title for the classic novel, The Metamorphosis. Verdatum (talk) 00:36, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More than enough time for secondary sources to be added, if there are any. Delete. --fvw* 01:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The film does not satisfy any of the notability criteria for films. Google News[29] does not reveal anything for the film's cause either. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No evidence of notability Alberon (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy and editor is counceled about verifiability by closing admin. The user has 0 edits. This is his very first effort on wikipedia. WP:BITE:
      Understand that newcomers are both needed by, and of value to, the community. By empowering newcomers, we improve the diversity of knowledge, opinions and ideals on Wikipedia, enhance its value and preserve its neutrality and integrity as a resource. In fact, it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia (i.e. substantive edits). While insiders and administrators are responsible for a large bulk of total edits, these often involve tweaking, reverting, and rearranging content.
      The overwhelming majority of the Articles for deletion are against new editor creators. Since October 2007 Wikipedia's article-base is slowing, and the Economist magazine attributes this to the way that veteran editors treat new wikipedians.[30] travb (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:32, 17 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 02:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Challenger Corporation[edit]

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

    Nothing in the article to assert notablility —G716 <T·C> 05:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Cases could be made that this article is an orphan, borderline advertising and it fails COI. At the very least needs to be cleaned up for NPOV. --MrShamrock (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quotes ""The company created the first academically organized emergency medicine review course in the U.S." and "Today, half the nation's ER docs use Challenger software on a CD to prepare for state board exams." from the American City Business Journals both predicate notability. I have already fought this battle with a few other admins/users(who have given their stamp of approval), and I don't see how those quotes alone (both from a notable source) fail to give the proper notability that meets Wikipedia standards. Hitting Random article a few times quickly brings me to a few articles that affirm the same or less notability than Challenger does. (i.e. WIOS, Lang Sen Wetland Reserve(which has been marked since late 2007 as needing attention), Mirza Hossein-Qoli, Battle Circle (novels)). If articles such as these can find a home here, and seem to pass the notability guidelines, then why not this one?

    Philluminati (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep. There has been some attempt to improve the article. Sources still need work. Basie (talk) 23:56, 14 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) 00:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. Unless I am really missing something, this one really does not seem to pass the notability threshold. It seems to be a small company with really very little third party coverage. There were a bunch of repeats of a press release about a strategic venture with HealthStream. Also I don't see a claim of notability about the company in the article. I have no doubt this is a real and active company but would normally require something to establish notability. Even the company's own press room doesn't have any real news. Unless the author can come up with some more material, I would encourage removal. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is apparently an online or software based tech business offering exam prep courses to physicians. The links given are apparently to a local business paper and a single story in a local daily newspaper. The other links are not primarily about this firm, and a couple don't even mention it. Looks to me like yet another tech business that wants a Wikipedia article about itself for promotion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I've moved a statement so the nominator's comment is again at the top of the page. - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 16 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 01:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Darren Sussman[edit]

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

    Delete Vanity page, clearly fails WP:COI and WP:N, has been tagged for both for nearly a year. MrShamrock (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete I am unable to locate significant third party coverage. Although COI and Auto are not enough for me to want to delete, and this is the creator's only creation, I do not see that the subject meets WP:BIO. One would think there would be more for the creator of Theatermania. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete couldn't possibly fail WP:BIO any more miserably. JBsupreme (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep per google news and straight Google. If the article is sent to cleanup, it has a nice chance of becoming encyclopedic with assertions of notability being properly sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. Those Google News hits are a start, but most of them are trivial mentions - i.e. they either mention Sussman offhand or quote him on the subject of the article. The company he founded might be notable, but he himself doesn't seem to have any relevance outside its founding. Graymornings(talk) 00:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Should have mentioned this more clearly. I went searching for RS with V. All I came up with was trivial, non significant coverage. I looked through the hits Michael cited and found nothing. Might have missed something, but without links to significant coverage, I can't say there is any. Dlohcierekim 01:17, 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 merge to Fat Tulips. MBisanz talk 02:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Heaven Records[edit]

    Heaven Records (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) 00:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: no reliable independent 3rd party sources WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Fat Tulips. Doesn't merit it's own article but worth mentioning in the band's article. Info is easily verified - I have some of the records on the label, for instance.--Michig (talk) 20:10, 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 keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 22:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pontiac Rageous[edit]

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

    Non-notable car. Most standalone models are notable on their own, but this never got past a concept and a dinky model. Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm changing to keep based on the references provided below. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There's very limited information on this car, since the concept project has been killed. --Mblumber (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. two lines and an infobox does not an article make. No WP:N proved. ThuranX (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 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.
    1. ^ "What is a listed building?". Manchester City Council. Retrieved 2007-12-08.
    2. ^ "Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9)". Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 2007-12-17.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_15&oldid=1081071471"