Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 12

< 11 March	13 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfterLogic WebMail[edit]

WP:NN software. All refs are primary sources. G-hits are all promotional or downloads. No G-news hits. Author seems to have WP:COI as is a WP:SPA editor on topics relating to this (his/her?) company. Failed {{prod}} after author/sole-contributor removed tag. Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references in the article are self-published. A search for coverage about the software turns up download sites but no actual coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Whpq. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = I did my own search and it agrees with the results of Whpq's search. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Lenticel ^(talk) 09:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Emo[edit]

This article is completely redundant to the Emo article. Most of its content is unreferenced, and the only 2 references it does have are already used in the Emo article. It had a few other references earlier, but none of them could be considered reliable as they consisted of personal websites, blogs, etc. Merging and/or redirection are not suitable options. There is nothing useful that could be merged into Emo, as it merely repeats information that is already in that article. The title "What Is Emo" is a highly unlikely search term given that we already have an Emo article, and of course Wikipedia is not Ask.com. IllaZilla (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There's nothing here that isn't already covered in Emo. TheLetterM (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Pure abuse of encyclopedia space. Basically a FAQ. Why is it that self declared emos have such a difficultly grasping the basic guidelines of wikipedia? They are constantly spamming talk:emo with meaningless pep-talkish tirades. Zazaban (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant with Emo. (And can I get a WP:NPA on the !votes here? Don't hate the editor, hate the page.) - Eron^Talk 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this comment. Plz comment on the article itself not on who wrote it. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already covered by Emo. Nothing to merge, all content is unsourced and/or OR, would have to be re-written from scratch. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emo. I agree that this is not a plausible search term, but the nominator merged a reference from What Is Emo to Emo, so we have to keep the redirect for WP:GFDL purposes. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 06:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we don't. I didn't merge a source, I added the same source to the emo article in an appropriate place. Merging would be if I had taken the text accompanying that reference and moved it to the emo article as well. This is not a GDFL issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is Snow Unless we want to have What is articles for several other subjects (sort of a Jeopardy Wikipedia), there is really no reason for this article. Eauhomme (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant content, insufficient 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinesio tape[edit]

Blatant advertisement for a product (it looked even worse before I removed all of the trademark symbols). I had placed a speedy tag but it was removed by the user who made the current ad-like version of the article. The only notable mention I can even find is one article in Swimming World Magazine. The entire article would need to be scrapped though and re-written even if the product was notable (which I have my doubts about). TJ Spyke 22:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more than happy to adjust this article to a more neutral point of view. --KinesioTaping (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is also requesting a move to Kinesio Tape, on the grounds of trademarking. Delete as spam for non-notable product. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands,Delete as spam. I feel there could be notability in the product but possibly more in the future than now, but there needs to be a complete neutral rewrite without the bias introduced possibly by an editor with a username that might warrant administrator attention. If suitable references can be supplied (sounds like I'm looking for a new butler...) and a neutral tone ("How does it work?" No. That's brochure writing.) adopted, I might be willing to shift my 'vote'. Peridon (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--on the one hand, this article is the worst piece of spam I've seen in a while. On the other hand, there is this Google News search which suggests that the product itself is notable. The article needs to rewritten from start to finish, and it might be a good idea if users with the words "Kinesio" and "tape" or any combination thereof would stay far, far away from the article. To users with such words in their name: please see WP:COI. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete (g11) I'd remove the spammy text if there was any hope of saving this, but the only way to save it would be to start new. This is beyond gone.--Terrillja _talk 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. --DAJF (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11, now that I've blocked creator. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Overbrook Brothers[edit]

Contested prod. Movie whose notability rests solely on the fact it will premiere at the SXSW Film Festival. Neutral, leaning towards delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this nomination is premature. The film will screen in two days after which it is quite possible for more media coverage to turn up. Both the creator and nominator should be slapped with a wet fish for jumping the gun. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That makes no sense. The film exists. It plays at SXSW in 2 days. You admission alone of that fact means your dispute is invalid. How is it premmature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeDubya (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's premature because by the end of this AFD the film will have aired making the AFD possibly moot. They should've waited for the premiere, then look for sources and nominate if they don't exist. (I'm not saying this should be deleted, I'm saying the AFD was brought on too soon) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep It makes sense if you're in the camp that believes nothing can have a Wikipedia article until it's sufficiently Internet Famous. In other words, it makes absolutely no sense, especially because some people (i.e. me) might legitimately be interested in reading about the film, and would like Wikipedia to document it, thank you very much. – Zacqary Adam Green (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need something to be internet famous. Books, magazines and paper newspapers work just as well as sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well thats like saying "I've developed a new type of aircraft. I've built it. Its in my backyard. I have pictures to prove it. But I havent flown it." Its still an airplane. It exists, but just because no one has seen it fly doesnt make it invisible. I am confused as to why this is an issue. In your line of thought, every scientific theory should be removed from Wikipedia because Perez Hilton hasnt talked about it on his website. There are several references below that prove this is a real movie. Please check them out. BTW, the premiere is in 6 hours and I am taking the fish you recommend I be slapped with as a date.
Keep - It's a real movie, it actually exists, has real actors (some of whom are actually notable) in it, premiered at a real film festival. Proxy User (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brooklet, Georgia. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklet Peanut Festival[edit]

Prod was contested on the grounds that for this event to have been held annually for 20 years is enough to make it notable. If that were the case, then I should create an article about my family's annual Christmas party. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, no notability nor significant coverage. Lets drink Tea 23:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brooklet, Georgia. The festival appears to be a significant part of the town culture as it has a page on the town site. Coverage is sparse but not non-existent so we can satisfy verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and Redirect to Brooklet, Georgia. References are verifiable. Festival is notable within its region, but if consensus is to merge to Brooklet, Georgia per Whpq, then that would also be acceptable with a redirect. Unionsoap (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination argument is completely inadequate, does not support the AfD in any way. Proxy User (talk) 06:26, 16 March 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 00:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brooklet, Georgia. Verifiable, but not notable outside of the area, or not notable by itself. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non- monogamous opposite-sex marriage[edit]

Appears to be a neologism or unnotable term, has exactly 2 google hits Lets drink Tea 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should allow the article to expand before you start tagging it up for deletion. Aggressive behavior like such is discouraged on wikipedia. You nominated it for deletion with in seconds of creation.--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 22:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched for the term and am convinced that it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. Lets drink Tea 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google non-heterosexual marriage, then come back and tell me what it says....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article was moved to a new name with a grand total of 0 google hits, not to mention reliable sources. Lets drink Tea 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this user has not yet tried googling "non-hetroesexual marriage"--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did, ~200 hits and no reliable sources. Lets drink Tea 22:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Equality USA is not a reliable source..... LOLZ. Ok then, please tell me what is..... Because that's were i got one of the references....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use a pressure group's website as an objective source on a topic they lobby about. (Unless you are clearly just quoting their POV, and state so within the text). Obviously, the group has a vested interest in the matter. This goes for pro-SSM groups as well as anti-SSM groups. Outsider80 (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is to show that the term is in use.... so there is not attempt at a POV.... your argument is void. I will go ahead and get a reference from anti same-sex marriage site using this term.... if it makes you feel any better.... because it doesn't matter what the reference is..... because, as i said, THE PURPOSE OF THE REFERENCE IS TO SHOW THAT THE TERM IS IN USE--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's just a complicated way of referring to polygamy. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here, you can see that the creator's average article doesn't last very long here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No... the article is everthing that is not a marriage between one man and one woman..... maybe you should research the topic a bit before commenting. This article includes same-sex marriage, polygamy (as you said), a marriage between, for example, one man and one person who is not a man or a woman. like i said, do your research.--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-monogamous is the same as polygamous. By definition. And there are those who will argue that marriage is by definition heterosexual. (Whether or not that is the case is beside the point here.) So if you rewrite the title as polygamous ~~heterosexual~~ marriage, you get polygamous marriage, that is, polygamy. End of story. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great.... the article is not Non-monogamous.... the article is Non- monogamous opposite-sex marriage..... so let me help you brake the title down, you seem to be having trouble. What does "monogamous opposite-sex marriage" mean??..... a marriage between one man and one woman..... ok.... now add the prefix "non-" to the front..... a marriage that's NOT between one man and one woman.... So please stop trying to say this article means polygamy.... i don't know how you have come to the conclusion, but it is wrong....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to redefine English grammar here. The prefix non applies only to the word that immediately follows, even with a statement to the contrary (since such a statement is not always visible). So "Non- monogamous" is the same as "Non-monogamous". Otherwise one could argue that it is non-marriage as well. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page is pretty much a dictionary definition; perhaps an attempt to coin a new term (judging from the author moving the page around). It cites no references to support that the term has such a meaning (the linked page seems to be a blog entry, and uses "non-heterosexual marriage" to mean same-sex marriage), and lumps together separate topics of same-sex marriage, polygamy/polyamory, etc. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See that stub tag at the bottom of the article? it asks for you to help expand the page..... why don't you....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I don't believe that the page could be expanded to make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. As I have said, it is an attempt to promote a newly coined term, which is not what Wikipedia is for. (In addition, it attempts to lump "non-heterosexual marriage" with it, which - as both I and other users have noted - is generally used to mean "same-sex marriage".) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very important in the debate on same-sex marriage. Also, none of the arguements for deleting the article are even credible.... on person said this article is a fancy word for polygamy. ?????.... do people even try to hit up google before speaking their opinion???--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this important? Its not widely used. And none of the sources on the article actually say what the term is. LetsdrinkTea 23:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reference are to show the term is in use.... and if you need a definition, try looking up the words "non", "monogamous", "heterosexual", and "marriage".... i didn't really think that it was necessary.... people usually know what those words mean....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for article creator -- um, how exactly does this not overlap with Open marriage ? Outsider80 (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Marriage means that you can have sex with other people without it being called "cheating". An example would be that you and your girlfriend/boyfriend/partner have an agreement where you can sleep with other people, and it being okay. A non-heterosexual marriage would be any form of marriage that is not a monogamous heterosexual marriage.... such as same-sex marriage....--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is claiming that "non-heterosexual marriage" refers to any marriage which is not between 1 man and 1 woman. This obviously is not taking into account polygamous marriages of the Christian variety -- where the man is married to more than 1 woman, but the women are not married to each other, only the man. Hence, it would be a "heterosexual" marriage. This article is just a hit-piece on the "traditional" marriage folks. If anything, it should be a blurb on the criticism section of that article. Sorry, Juno. Delete Outsider80 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is flawed... the article is titled "Non- monogamous opposite-sex marriage"... so once again i will say... everything that is "not one man and one woman.".... that's what this article is about..... Please actually read the article.... i can tell you obviously haven't.--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did -- "Non- monogamous opposite-sex marriage, or simply non-heterosexual marriage[1][2] is a marriage that is NOT between one man and one woman." -- :-( Outsider80 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno411's point (from what I can gather) is the article is about anything that is not "monogamous heterosexual marriage", the title has a dangling modifier. However by his definition the article should include "non-monogamous heterosexual marriage" "monogamous same-sex marriage" and "non-monogamous same sex marriage" which are all covered in other articles and are different enough concepts that can not be covered in the same page.--kelapstick (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.. though even if the contradiction in the lede sentence is fixed, the article basically is documenting a political catch-phrase which applies to all marriages which are not 1-man/1-woman. Do we normally keep articles on such phrases unless they have gained wide-spread usage? Outsider80 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I am not advocating keeping it, I was trying to clarify, after reading the article and the AfD, it took considerable thought to determine what the article was actually about.--kelapstick (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to wiktionary, Cooljuno411. This is an encyclopaedia, so an article that contains only a definition doesn't belong here. Also, Wikipedia articles should have reliable sources, demonstrate that their content is notable, and offer a neutral point of view. I really can't see this surviving AfD, I'm afraid.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a concept for an encyclopedia; I will concur completely and utterly with S Marshall. To the creator, I have read some of your responses here, and they only confirm that this is a dictionary/wiktionary entry AT BEST. And if editors here have to argue that Marriage Equality USA is not a reliable source, then you need to have another look at WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First the lead is contradictory:

Non- monogamous opposite-sex marriage, or simply non-heterosexual marriage

Non-monogamous heterosexual marriage is open marriage between a man and a woman (unless my definition of heterosexual is wrong). Non-heterosexual (same-sex marriage) is, between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, monogamy has nothing to do with it. Open marriage (between a man and a woman) and same sex marriage are not the same thing. Having said that, there are perfictly addiquate articles about marriage, same-sex marriage and monogamy (or lack of). Non-heterosexual marriage (which redirects here) should redirected to Same-sex marriage (which I will do, because as I stated it has nothing to do with monogamy). So again delete as a neologism that contradicts itself, any information that would be usable in it is found in articles about marriage, monogamy and same-sex marriage.--kelapstick (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your definition is very wrong.... Non-heterosexual marriage DOES NOT mean same-sex marriage.... is means a marriage that is NOT a heterosexual marriage... you are very lacking in understanding of gender identity, sexology, etc.... let me give you an example..... What is a marriage between a man and a person who is not a man or woman..... clearly an non-heterosexual marriage.... and quite clearly not a same-sex marriage.... like i said.... non-heterosexual marriage means a marriage that is NOT between people of the opposite sex.... you can't just assume it is going to be a same-sex relationship.... it's not always the case--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article seems to be an attempt to define a term lumping same-sex marriage and polygamy together in a term that is spectacularly unclear. I had to read the whole thing before I realized it was non-monogamous and same sex that was intended by the poor phrasing. Sorry, cooljuno, I know you meant this in good faith, but it just does not work. Aleta ^Sing 03:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - A notice has been placed at WT:LGBT alerting the LGBT Studies Wikiproject to this discussion. Aleta ^Sing 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 03:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Term seems, at best, a neologism. The original contributor might consider expanding related pages on human relationships with relevant material. --Gimme danger (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the term that the creator is groping for is "Non-traditional marriage". But I agree that these are better handled in the existing articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that would be very inappropriate. The term "traditional marriage" is an attempt at political framing on the behalf of conservatives try to make same-sex marriage look negative.... Same-sex couples have been getting married before the United States was even around.--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 04:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm aware that this term does not suit your personal preferences or promote the point of view that you want represented on Wikipedia. However, it's the term that seems to be commonly used to describe the concept that you explained here. The quoted phrase "nontraditional marriage" gets about four thousand hits on Google, and a good deal of them discuss issues of same-sex marriage and polygamy. It might be a heternormative term, but WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant rule. Furthermore, your current choice of name is used to mean something entirely different in 100% of the three uses found by Google (e.g., this book), so we simply cannot use it. But I am still not convinced that this article is appropriate for Wikipedia at all: it appears to be a collection of separate topics, much like someone might try to write an article on All colors except blue or All humans, except Americans. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this is a polyamy coatrack article. More than 2 people marriages can be covered in the polygamy article or elsewhere - there are not the sources to warrant a seperate article, and even if there was, this is a terrible title and article. Plus non-monomamous marriages are just normal marriages aren't they? Dont most spouses cheat?YobMod 07:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aleta sums up my reasoning. The article is confusing and incorrect. APK How you durrin? 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is the lead of the article incorrect, it also uses confusing terminology to describe ideas already covered in existing articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WhatamIdoing. The scope of this article is already covered in our articles on Same-sex marriage, polygamy, and open marriage; the term of the present title appears to lack currency. There are fascinating points to be made by deconstructing "traditional" marriage, for its assumptions both of monogamy and of heterosexuality, but I see no evidence that this gets done widely under this catch-all term. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch (delete). Another noble attempt, at what I'm not sure but it does seem to be more confusing than clarifying and more convoluted than clear. I don't really see a route to cleaning this up, sorry. -- Banjeboi 11:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "more confusing than clarifying and more convoluted than clear" said it all- Power.corrupts (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone but the article creator. This is a confusingly definied neologism and original research. Edward321 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article essentially has no real content. Beach drifter (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR. Just not notable. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO all the way, baby. Matt (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G10, attack page) by Toddst1. Non admin closure. Deor (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Holloway[edit]

A pretty clear hoax. But as hoaxes aren't covered by CSD, I'm bringing this one here. Fribbler (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable through reliable sources. Encourage letting this AFD run so it can be easily speedied later if someone tries to re-create it. Townlake (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 pure vandalism (blatant hoax). Like, she was so addicted that Coca-Cola's sales dropped significantly after she recovered. Yeah, right. Borders on being an attack page as well if this person is real. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WDANZ[edit]

Organisation without a clear claim to notability, and with all sources being references to the organisation page or to mailing lists. There is a substantial but unsourced "Controversy" section. One independent source I found is Computerworld New Zealand.

I just deleted a "competition" section as being inadequately sourced. gadfium 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Lets drink Tea 22:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the NZ Compterworld article already mentioned, I cannot find any coverage about this organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delte - unnotable, original research (besides the Computerworld article). Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 21:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 03:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Athaenara, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accedian Networks[edit]

Blatant advertising (speedy deletion tag was removed) HaeB (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Re-tagged. The tag remover's argument is not at all convincing, since this is the kind of information a company would insert in its own pamphlets. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The removal of the first speedy tag is also that editor's only contribution. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G12 by PMDrive1061. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jacqueline James[edit]

Delete was tagged speedy, but there is a hint of claim to notability here. First, some people have expressed an opinion that all Ph.D.'s are notable, a notion I disagree with strongly, but if that view prevails, God willing, I'll finally be notable. Second, the claim that "She graduated the first black female engineering graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy with a Bachelor’s of Science in Civil Engineering in 2000." Which claim is a nice combination of female + race + particular degree + major + school, which is sufficiently contrived to make 1000s of people notable the same way. Again, me too, as the first gay Latino getting a Ph.D. in my discipline at my school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RESUME. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable; but the claim is undoubtedly not intended as being "the first black female engineering graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy with a Bachelor’s of Science in Civil Engineering in 2000" but as being, in 2000, the first ..... If she had been their first black female graduate, regardless of program, then there just might have been enough publicity to pass WP:BIO. Considering it a a resume, it isnt even clear at that. DGG (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this should be deleted. The bio is certainly notable. If the Coast Guard Academy graduated their first black female engineer in 2000, it is notable. I also noted that several reporter wrote on the topic of her being the first for her country to graduate from the academy. There is no contact info so I do not consider it a resume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klyttlecamp (talk • contribs) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the article does not claim that. Civil engineering is just one of the engineering degrees they offer. DGG (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleting as a blatant copyright violation of [1]. User's other edits have all been copyvios as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salsaghetti[edit]

Delete was tagged speedy delete as spam, but less spammy than just not notable on which basis I say we should delete it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This actually is a real candy. Macarion (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article convinces me that I would like to try the stuff, but it does not convince me that it is even remotely notable. In other words, what we have here is an instance of successful WP:SPAM. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Has sources, being a stub is no reason to delete (non-admin closure) Terrillja _talk 23:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorne Munroe[edit]

Stub. Unsourced. Tried to CSD but tag was removed by another editor. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion, neither is an article being a stub. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is now sourced and it obviously meets notability requirements for WP:Music.Nrswanson (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A stub is no reason to AfD, it's clearly not speediable as there is an assertion of notability in the principle cello claim. A quick google search verifies this, and I think principle in an internationally renowned orchestra is a good indication of notability. As per WP:BIO A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. I've will add some refs to the article. --Ged UK 21:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references have been added, subject meets relevant notability guidelines. —Snigbrook 21:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (I was the one who removed the CSD tag.) I feel he is well documented in secondary, reliable sources as a notable musician. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He meets the requirements of WP:Music. Also see these results in Google News all dates. [2]. Note that the proper course of action with an unsourced article is to look for sources rather than putting it up for deletion, especially given his description as a principal cellist with 2 highly notable orchestras. In this case they are very easily found. I also find it completely bizarre that this article was nominated for a speedy delete within 1 minute of it having been created. This AfD is totally inappropriate as well. Voceditenore (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Why are we dragging this out?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Shellenberger[edit]

WP:BLP which breaches WP:ONEEVENT (event being publication of a co-authored essay later turned into a book). The move of relevant material to an article on the book (Break Through) makes what's left eminently deletable, as the subject's other activities are not notable (to date). NB as can be seen from Talk:Michael Shellenberger, the article was almost speedy-deleted in 2007, and the subject complained in 2009 about undue weight given to some minor consulting work relating to the political hot-potato of Venezuela. Deletion (because all the consulting work is non-notable) would solve the problem. Rd232 ^talk 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep. Is it really WP:BLP1E when someone writes a notable book, or is it WP:AUTHOR? Do we have a single case where the book is notable, but the author isn't? I'm also not sure that I agree the consulting work is non-notable: Lumina Strategies and American Environics each probably pass WP:ORG if someone were to bother writing articles about them. My mind can certainly be changed by counterexamples (and perhaps this is one of them because the book had two authors--though it was the people, not the book, that was singled out by Time magazine), but it seems to me that arguing that the book is notable makes the author notable, and the nominator isn't arguing the book isn't notable. As for Shellenberger being unhappy that the article is no longer one-sided and that his consulting work is in his article, it's a good example of WP:LUC. THF (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I very much doubt that either would pass WP:ORG (and I'm not convinced that even if they did that this would give notability to the founder - a form of "relationships do not confer notability", see WP:AUTHOR#Invalid criteria). Time singled out the authors because its approach was to seek "heroes", which could hardly describe the book. Also I disagree that the book being notable (which I haven't sought to prove or disprove, but I think probably is) means the authors are. In 2005 (prior to the book publication, but after the controversial essay which preceded it), the NY Times described the authors as "two little-known, earnest environmentalists in their 30's..."[3] Rd232 ^talk 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event is policy while WP:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals is a guideline so I think the first must be given more weight; in effect, the notability guideline also says at WP:BIO1E that Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. JRSP (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the book is not really an event, and although that is what Shellenberger is known for, the coverage (including some of the sources cited in the article) is not only about the book. —Snigbrook 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like nitpicking - publication of the book (which he only co-authored) is one event. And the other coverage is of things not notable - just normal business activities - which wouldn't justify an article if the book hadn't been published: ergo WP:ONEEVENT applies. Rd232 ^talk 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this in illegitimate interpretation of "one event" which is designed for tabloid level notability, or trivial events, or being a victim or bystander. If there;s anything genuine, it should not be covered there, and I so interpret the policy. I know the wording doesnt say this clearly, but it doesnt make sense to me otherwise. An author can be notable for a single book, and a review in both the NYT and the WSJ meets that. Plus Time & probably most other major sources. DGG (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with DGG that this isn't what BLP1E is designed for, and we should be careful of interpreting it too strictly in this case. Everything in it is discussed in terms of news events, which is not what publication of a book is. Also, despite being on a policy page it is phrased in terms of a guideline ("if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", emphasis mine), so I don't think the argument that it overrides WP:CREATIVE is valid; at best, they are both on the same footing of being concepts that apply in most but not all cases. JulesH (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The spirit of it clearly applies here IMO, if not the letter. Further the subject doesn't IMO meet the WP:AUTHOR criteria. If the policy doesn't fit this situation, then we should consider changing the policy. Rd232 ^talk 11:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep. There are more than 300 references to Shellenberger in Nexis. More than 27,000 in Google. The entry of Schellenberger was created in December 2007. Deletion issue arose, as far as I can tell, when I included information, related to his lobbying activities on behalf of Hugo Chavez's government, that is perceived controversial by himself and two editors contributing in this page. There is precedent in Wikipedia about inclusion of information regarding similar conflict of interests with regards to funding Mine Your Own Business. To argue that a book is notable but the author isn't is, IMO, preposterous. Consulting work was notable enough to merit reference in reliable secondary sources. However having said this, I do believe Shellenberger should be entitled to having his entry deleted, if he so wishes. He has contributed to the entry, why not putting the question to him?--Alekboyd (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That you'd mention Mine Your Own Business here does nothing to persuade me that you've understood the issue. That PR work results in a PR person getting a couple of minor mentions in the press hardly seems demonstrable of notablility. Note that this is different than if it were actual consulting work being reported on due to that work being of interest - the mentions arise from PR work, which inherently involves dealing with the press. As for asking Shellenberger his opinion - he's already made it perfectly clear that he doesn't want undue weight given to the Venezuela consulting but you continue to insist on it, so asking for his opinion now looks disengenuous. Finally, as for Google hits, see WP:ATA#Google test. Same applies to Nexis (especially since this is a news db and as noted we are talking about PR work, so quality of hits is the issue). Rd232 ^talk 17:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please provide secondary sources supporting that the subject's consulting work is notable? A single sentence in an article dealing about another subject is hardly a claim of notability IMO. JRSP (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garance Franke-Ruta wrote a lengthy article in The American Prospect where Shellenberger's & Nordhaus's consulting work was the centerpiece. THF (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- As far as lobbying for Chavez is concerned, sources are cited in entry.--Alekboyd (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This falls under WP:NPF. The sources merely cite the subject in passing, they do not show or claim that the consulting work is notable. However this deletion debate isn't the place to argue this further. Rd232 ^talk 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, notable, likely to be a subject of inquiry. What to include can be debated later on the discussion page, although I'm not sure the subject should have an undue say Vartanza (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is a misinterpretation of WP:BLP1E, which is intended to cover cases where people are caught up in events, not where they are notable for what they create. And the claim that this falls foul of WP:NPF is an even greater misinterpretation. That clause exists to protect the privacy of people who have been thrust into the public eye without wishing it. This article subject obviously doesn't fall into that category. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll concede that I'm interpeting BLP1E broadly - more broadly I guess than others would agree with (but define "event"... and is the logic so different for a book publication?). As to NPF - there is nothing in the written policy as stands that supports your argument. It may be historically true that this is how NPF came about but it isn't part of the policy - and again, I do not see why NPF should be limited as you say. Rd232 ^talk 03:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True dream[edit]

Plot summary of one story which has been self-published here and another not yet published. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published almost certainly means non-notable, and certainly in this case. --Ged UK 21:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No soruces to establish ntoability, and the entire article is a set of plot summaries. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Arnold[edit]

Delete fails WP:BIO. So non-notable we don't know when or where he was born, red flags of non-notability for recent "biographies". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No strong assertion of notability. No sources provided. The name Peter Arnold is too common to provide useful search results. A variety of qualifiers to narrow it down yields no useful results. A search for his company which does have a rather unique name turns up no coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum bogodynamics[edit]

No reliable sources demonstrating notability for a Wikipedia article. It's fine that somebody somewhere made a joke about something, or that some people repeated it, but that doesn't mean it gets a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite surprisingly there is an actual journal article discussing the impact of computer speak on the English language (including the term "quantum bogodynamics"). "Bogosity" (a redirect) appears 50+ times in Google Scholar (including one from the 1950s). Google Books provides three more sources demonstrating usage of "quantum bogodynamics". – 74 02:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Google Books shows multiple copies of FOLDOC, the source upon which this article was directly based, all but two of which are the entirely unreliable Websters Quotations, Facts, and Phrases (for the second time here at AFD in as many days), and a novel, which isn't a source at all. The journal article, unsurprisingly, doesn't document any such thing as quantum bogodynamics. Its coverage of the subject amounts to exactly 4 words: "such as ‘quantum bogodynamics’". It does document the propensity of on-line computer programming communities to create neologisms, such as "quantum bogodynamics". And the other Google Scholar hits aren't even about either quantum bogodynamics or bogosity. The 1954 article is about economics, in fact. Counting Google hits, even Google Scholar hits, isn't research. Uncle G (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. I specifically excluded the multiple copies of "Webster's" whatevers. Ignoring those, we have three books using the term. You might claim that they are unreliable (and you are probably at least half-right) but they still show that the term has entered usage. As to the journal article, I don't have access to read it, so I don't know how accurate your assessment of its coverage is. – 74 05:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonetheless, those three books, as I said, comprise two more copies of FOLDOC, and a novel, which isn't a source. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't document terms that "have entered usage". This is an encyclopaedia, and articles only exist if the people, places, events, concepts, or things denoted by the terms have been documented. An article on bogosity or quantum bogodynamics requires that the subjects of bogosity and quantum bogodynamics have been documented, not that someone has merely uttered the word somewhere in a treatise on (say) economics. So far, you have cited zero sources actually documenting this subject, but instead are simply counting Google hits that match a word or phrase. Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So sorry, I must've wandered into Articles for Research instead of Articles for Deletion. The *published* copies of FOLDOC that you so hastily dismiss do indeed provide definitions, as does the Jargon file reference already in the article. You can argue they aren't independent (but WP:N states Independent "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject", which these are not), you can argue that they aren't reliable (one is published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which bypasses self-published accusations), or you can spout random nonsense and insult me; at this point I really don't care. Have fun. – 74 19:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Doing the research is a necessary component of AFD. You aren't doing it. You're counting occasions where a word or phrase is mentioned as if they are sources, when upon examination they turn out to say nothing at all about any relevant subject. As I said, the article from the 1950s that you were so happy to hold up as evidence was about economics. Had you done the research that is required of you by our policies, and actually read the source, you would have known this. You didn't even need to read very far beyond the title and first paragraph. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The Jargon File is a reliable source for hacker slang and jokes, and this has an entry there. The rest are apparently either copies of the Jargon File entry (FOLDOC, "Websters" Quotations etc) or trivial references (the journal article described above). We need multiple independent non-trivial references to establish notability, and as I don't see anything non-trivial that is independent of the Jargon File definition. Consider this a keep if any additional independent sources are described. JulesH (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jargon that is simply not notable enough for its own article. Covered elsewhere. Waste of space. Proxy User (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 74. Also, an edu search returns a few results http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/swil/archives/Misc_Works/mitjargonfile/hacker3.txt http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/QU/QUANTUM+BOGODYNAMICS.html http://web.cacs.louisiana.edu/~mgr/450/burks/foldoc/63/13.htm http://web.cacs.louisiana.edu/~mgr/450/burks/foldoc/37/95.htm .Smallman12q (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you've found 4 more copies of FOLDOC, 3 of which are clearly marked as such in their URLs. It has been copied a lot around the WWW. You've also found one copy of this very Wikipedia article, clearly marked as such with a direct hyperlink back to it, which isn't a source at all, of course. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources have been found already: both academic and pop-culture. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly one source, the same FOLDOC article over and over, has been found. It is taken from an identical Jargon File entry. As a self-styled collection of slang and in-jokes, that's not exactly superbly reliable. Are we aiming to be an accurate encyclopaedia, based upon reliable sources that document their subjects seriously, and so can be trusted to be accurate and truthful? Or are we to become yet another computer slang joke book, yet another FOLDOC mirror? (If the latter, why? Clearly, the world isn't short of them.) Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, "Websters Online Dictionary" and " Websters Quotations, Facts, and Phrases" seem to be 2 faces of the same source.DGG (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources provided don't really discuss the term Quantum bogodynamics in a meaningful enough way to establish notability for neologism.Nrswanson (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G and nrswanson.Inmysolitude (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There doesn't seem to be no significant coverage as required by WP:NOTE. And I'm doubtful about the reliability of the sources as well.--Sloane (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We need substantial coverage in reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Bulldogs football team (future schedules)[edit]

While schedule are a good idea in the individual season articles, this list easily violates WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, especially in the later years as matchups change easily, and WP:NOT#STATS Delete Secret ^account 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious CRYSTAL issues, and Wikipedia isn't a repository of event schedules. Townlake (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can see arguments either way, but this is based on contractual agreements, not some editor peering into a crystal ball. College football is big business, and the future opponents are planned years in advance by the athletic departments at the universities, within limits. And yes, it makes news. Because Georgia has to play the other teams in the SEC East (Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt) and there's a rivalry with Auburn, six of the games are a given; the rest are scheduled years in advance, with a home-and-away in consecutive years against two teams in the SEC West, and four against non-conference opponents with whom contracts are signed. It's not "crystalballing" to say that Georgia has signed a contract with the University of Oregon to play in Eugene and then in Athens in 2015 and 2016. The ink's dry on those deals. Mandsford (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Game contracts are changed all the time. Games move for TV, scheduling conflicts come up (e.g. BYU buying out its game against Arizona State this year so it can play Oklahoma at the Cowboys' new stadium in Dallas)... and the "college football is big business" argument doesn't change the CRYSTAL issue. Plenty of future events are backed up by contracts, but til they occur, they're just plans. Townlake (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is typically the sort of thing Wikipedia doesn't cover. We don't do tv guide listings either. If the sources are reliable, they can be dropped in the external links section of the Georgia Bulldogs article. And Townlake is right too. It might be planned ahead of time, but there's no way to know for sure if the league exists in 7 years time or if the team will even be there. Even from experts, this would be crystal bal gazing. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wikipedia isn't a football schedule -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though Mandsford makes a valid point or two; there is too much crystal ballery here. However, MGM deserves a troutslap, or perhaps a slap with a big ole' shark, for suggesting that ANYTHING might EVER happen to the SEC. How dare you! Drmies (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard Alabama may drop down to Division II. Has anyone else heard this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Of all the guides that Wikipedia is not a sporting events guide is one of them. And um...Doctor, You need to check your redirects before you hit save page, I don't think the Securities and Exchange Commission qualified this year...--kelapstick (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brainspotting[edit]

The author of the article admits that it is a new therapy. Not yet noyable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel that this AfD is premature. The article is only a day old, and the creator promised on the talk page to quickly add references. Searches on Google Web and Google Scholar show hits for the term "brainspotting", but it is not clear to me whether they are sufficient to establish notability. I personally would like to see the creator, a new Wikipedia editor, be given a little more time to pull this together. Looie496 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plea AfD? I have no idea what that is, but it sounds serious. I feel Brainspotting (BSP) is noteworthy, but it is new, so others may not. BSP is related to EMDR and other therapy techniques that invoke the body's ability to health itself. BSP, like EMDR, is being developed in the client/practice field, not academic community, so there are not a lot of scholar studies yet. Psychologists and Psychiatrists don't know exactly why it works. It just does (speaking first hand).

Having never contributed a Wikipedia article, I assumed the article would start small. Others would read, become interested, and contribute. Over time, as BSP evolves, so would the entry. I'll work on improving this article immediately by finding references in academic and trade publications.

Can this entry simply be "Unpublished" rather than deleted? The time pressure and threat of deletion is stressful. I'd appreciate not losing the chance to contribute an article on this topic.

70.155.133.156 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can certainly be userfied (which means it's put into your personal article space). I suggest you make a Wikipedia account, which would facilitate that. Once userfied, you can work on it at your leisure (userfication will come with a couple of conditions but they're not onerous to someone who's writing a good faith article--they're designed to prevent abuse of Wikipedia, that's all). Hopefully the nominator would agree to withdraw this nomination in that case, without prejudice to a future AfD on either side?

I want to add that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to publish anything that's original research. Before anything is published in the main article space, it should be verifiable from reliable sources. In this case I'd imagine it would need to appear in some form of peer-reviewed specialist magazine. Like any encyclopaedia, Wikipedia isn't a primary source; it's simply a collection of information other people have already reviewed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably also provide you with a link to Wikipedia's collective view on reliable sources for medical topics.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great input. Appreciate the help. I'll look into placing this into a personal article space until I've pulled together peer-reviewed citations. 74.223.182.178 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references cited apart from websites. no evidence that this is a therapy and no evidence that notable. Unless a recognised peer reviewed journal is added quickly, then delete Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of whether the article is worked on or not. I checked the Google Scholar hits, they are all either about something else or self-published. Thus an acceptable article cannot be written - a bare collection of anecdotes is worse than nothing. AfD stands for "Articles for deletion" by the way. Narayanese (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His website says Dr. Grand has been featured on NBC Nightly News, Dateline, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsday and O Magazine. Can anyone find a link to him on those sites? If not, is he lying? I don't see any news articles at all mentioning him. Dream Focus 05:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So it is a new therapy, a big "so what"? There is plenty of discussion about it in established notable journals. AfD is premature. Proxy User (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what journals? there are none cited? Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Southern Education and Library Board. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Dallan's Primary School[edit]

Delete little to distinguish this primary school from the thousands of others; fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article implies notability, just needs sourcing. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Implying notability saves it from a speedy deletion; now it needs to show the significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Failing that, it ought to be merged or deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lack of sources is not a reason for deletion. Adding the unreferenced tag may be more appropriate here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the school board Southern Education and Library Board as for essentially all primary schools. The production of the DVD would probably not be enough, but they didn't produce it, they were one of the eleven schools that participated. For those who go by sources, there arent and probably wont be any, because it almost never happens for a primary school. DGG (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the relevant school district or board. Since they appear to be part of the Southern Education and Library Board the DVD doesn't confer any sort of independent notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PSP Solitude[edit]

Game mod with no assertion of notability. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 - fails WP:WEB totally. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spammy page, non notable Lets drink Tea 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Tony Fox. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it isn't web-related, though, it is a mod for a specific console. I thought I'd bring it here to be on the safe side. Ironholds (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreleased game, not notable, article seems to be by the developers; sorry, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not here to help promote it, you'll have to wait till after it has been released and become so popular that independent reliable sources start to write about it. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the Article: The game described in the article is set to have a release at the end of this month. This mod already is very popular and many people are anticipating it. I am the originator of this article and I am in no way apart of the team that is developing it. I am merely a person that has been watching the project for a little while, long enough though to know what I am saying about it. Also it has been featured on the Quick Jump Network, which is cited in the article. Corytheidiot (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC) — Corytheidiot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, nor is it a development diary. The article will have its place here if and when it gets sufficiently noticed and commented upon in sufficient reliable third-party sources. MLauba (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About Crystal Ball: This is a guaranteed thing. It is not pure speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corytheidiot (talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Provide the required sources to back it up and the whole discussion becomes moot. Searched myself, came up empty. MLauba (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – lack of verifiability via reliable secondary sources (once more, Mod DB is self-published material and hence is not reliable, nor are primary sources). It is also written in an unencyclopedic manner, failing WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:CRYSTAL. MuZemike 22:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no independent reliable sources. (the refs in the article link to WP articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment? The least he could do is put the website as an external source, even if it is a forum. Elm-39 - T/C 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW Keep. Article improvement fully meets concerns expressed. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of lakes in Michigan[edit]

Delete this is handled fine by the Category:Lakes of Michigan. If this article were somewhat good, it would have the 93 lakes listed there and someone would keep it up. But it's not good and will unlikely be as full as the category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have tagged this list for rescue, although it is not an article there is plenty of information to expand this list quickly as well as plenty of sources to indicate that a certain lake is in Michigan. Lets not mix categories and lists up, this list could become very helpful if it is fixed up. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All categories can and should have a corresponding list. It's an alternate and complementary form of organization. Some people don't like them. I'm not sure I like categories. Neither view is relevant. This article was nominated for deletion only 43 minutes after it was started, which is ridiculously short time to expect someone to do an article as good as the nominator requires. Someone can and will just start by copying in the names from the category, adding information such as county and size, and then looking for others that dont have an article yet. Probably all lakes large enough to be called so in the state are appropriate for articles, and the red links will be a guide. That's one of the purposes of lists. DGG (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Yes, it could be helpful and the list could sort the lakes by size, depth, or anything else, but the current list is a false start and it's unlikely to be improved on short notice. The current version is harmful in the sense that it is completely unhelpful to readers. It was created way too soon. (Anyone who wants to create a list like this, wouldn't be inconvenienced by the deletion of these two names since we have a complete category of lakes to pull from.) - Mgm|^(talk) 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now it's rewritten, it no longer resembles the two-entry list I had to look at. Therefore it is no longer harmful in my book. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. To respond to one point Mgm makes, I don't see how keeping this list can be harmful. It can only be improved from here. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOHARM for a contrary view. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my own defense, I wasn't basing my keep argument on "it does no harm", rather I was asking why Mgm thought it was harmful. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I've populated the list and will be helping to turn it into a useful table with info, etc. SMSpivey (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Linguist at Large and I just made the list into a sortable wikitable, added some very brief into words and have generally spiffed up the article. The original concerns with the article have been fully dealt with. SMSpivey (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Keep I was two and a half hours in working on the same project when I found out this was done. Oh well, you added more information, but I will help by adding to it. Quistisffviii (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists and categories should work together and per DGG. Lugnuts (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is incomplete, but contains more information than a category since it notes the location by county, and the size of the lake. Reasonable WP:LIST as it serves a navigational purpose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a link to the Michigan government website that list every lake in the state by county. The article meets notability requirements. Dream Focus 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per everyone except the nom.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep in concurrance with wikipedia precedent for such lists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per all of the above. It's cases like this that make me wish we had a policy against nominating articles for deletion so soon after their creation. And the nominator really ought not to rely on the faulty crystal ball that told him that this "will unlikely be as full as the category". DHowell (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hello? An article has not to be perfect from the beginning. If there's something, well, that's a case for {{sofixit}}. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 07:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of this article, I naturally think it should be kept. The reason that I created it was that I was reading about Lakes on Wikipedia and I found a box at the bottom of an article (no, sorry it was at the bottom of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes page... I knew I had a very good reason!) linking to pages of Lists for Lakes in each state, but there was no page for Michigan. So I created it. I didn't do much, other than add two lakes that I thought could use some more work (which I had been reading at the time), especially on the scientific/ecology/ecosystem side (certianly not my specialty). I figured that once the list existed, people would naturally add the names of lakes as they were working on them. I in no way thought that the list was complete. I looked at it as an ongoing part of the Wikiproject:Michigan, and assumed that other users would find it usefull and naturally expand it. I see that that has been done, and I think that the page looks beautiful and I commend all the good work that tireless wikipedians have poured into it. Sometimes I feel like someone is following me around determined to delete ever article I start without ever giving it a chance. I know I'm not the best editor, and it's definatly been a learning process. It would really be nice if editors here would be a little less "delete" happy and a little more "help happy" but that's just my personal rant. (ie. Ok, I see you've started this article that's really not up to standard, let me show you how you can improve it and find others to help you make it better as well.) Anyway... sorry to go on and on. Vote to keep on account of consistancy with Wikiproject Lakes. amyanda (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep in Spring the list has useful information that category can not have.--Caspian blue 05:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep This is exactly what wikipedia should have, useful and policy compliant. -- Banjeboi 17:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UCoz[edit]

CMS software with no claim of notability. no third party reliable sources where found (in English - I do not speak Russian) but those in Russian seem to point to product/company website. 16x9 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 16x9 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Previously Afd was under a different name found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UcoZ 16x9 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom, there doesn't seem to be any support for "notability" in English or Russian (using the Google Language Translator). Couldn't find anything to support wide use by anyone. Maybe sometime, but not today. Proxy User (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article about uCoz is necessary, because this service is mass. Technically uCoz takes a leading place among the vendors of this type of service that are already represented in Wikipedia: Wix.com Weebly Geocities. Speaking about notability, it's enough to view Alexa rank of the related services and compare them with uCoz rank. To delete the article about uCoz means to make Wikipedia less informative. Meskalyto (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)— Meskalyto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Quote: The article about uCoz is necessary, because this service is mass. I did a search using The Google, and I can't really say that what I found supports this assertion. Can you provide references that support your contention that it is in "mass" use? Proxy User (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a requirement for article subjects and WP:RS to be English only. Moreover, according to Alexa, ucoz.ru has a traffic rank of 237 [4] which helps show that this CMS is very much notable. Why not put more effort into researching and improving these articles vs mass-nominating them for AfD? Tothwolf (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one said there was a requirement. However, there is a requirement to have third party reliable sources that establish notability and none have been found. You should also assume good faith and be civil. 16x9 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Insinuation of SPA as you did in the edit summary for Meskalyto above when you refactored his comments is a serious allegation. My statements are based on the pattern I'm seeing in your edit summaries. Shall I link to them? I suggest you assume good faith and be civil towards all the editors you are accusing of spamming in all the CMS articles you are nominating for deletion. Tothwolf (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I read that comment about Russian the same as you, 16x9 is heavy-handed in his paroling of the CMS space here at Wikipedia. But it's irrelevant in this case. Russian or English, a Web search does not support notability. Are there supporting references in *any* language? That is the issue. Proxy User (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try google.ru? I don't speak Russian or have a Cyrillic keyboard so I'm not able to dig into it that well either. This might have been a good use for the {{expert-subject}} template as there are Russian-speaking users here on en.wiki. One of the first links that I managed to turn up was this one [5] so it would seem there is information out there— its just not in English. Tothwolf (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I used google translate [6] and the words Press Release stand out to me. But it is good to know that you, like me do not speak Russian, but when I don't know it I am attacked. 16x9 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difference being I'm not the one nominating the article (or rather lots of CMS articles) for AfD. You should be able to check for sources before bringing an article to AfD. Bringing something here and expecting others to check before voting is improper. Tothwolf (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I DID do my homework before being lots of non-notable CMS related articles for Afd. This Afd is not about me it is about the lack of third party reliable sources for ucoz and how it fails notability for inclusion in wikipedia. The only possible RS I found were in russian and maybe I was ambigous in my nomination, but I checked those with google translate, which can be flawed, and determined those source to fail. 16x9 (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found several that you nominated in books about blogging. One in particular that I intend to rescue went though AfD with three votes— to delete...and had no votes or discussion at all until after a relist. Maybe, just maybe you are missing some of this stuff when you check for references? (If you want to discuss this further, you know where my talk page is located.) Tothwolf (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software.Nrswanson (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent sources can be found that establish the subject's notability.Inmysolitude (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Hiscott[edit]

The subject falls a long way short of meeting WP:BIO or any other notability requirement. The subject has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Being a partner of The Printing Press (a small, local print firm) offers nothing notable and The Library Theatre Ltd manages 4 unique GHits. Nuttah (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is unreferenced, and with the lack of significant coverage this fails WP:BIO. —Snigbrook 21:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 14 March 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) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I can't see how any of the accomplishments or jobs this person has held meet any element of WP:N. Neither is there much coverage of this person. See that the Ghits are almost entirely Wikis. She gets zero News ghits. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. seicer | talk | contribs 22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lysa Hora (folklore)[edit]

Tagged as having no sources for more than two years, no indication that the topic has notability enough for its own article instead of just a brief mention elsewhere where appropriate. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion, a quick googling suggests there are sources out there. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggests? It's up to the article to prove notability, not for people just to assume it without evidence. If you find real sources, then add them. I'm not finding any, and the ones Esasus drug up failed miserably. DreamGuy (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jenuk is right. Existing lack of sources is not a valid reason for deletion unless it cannot improve by adding sources or unless leaving it unsourced is particularly harmful (like accusations in BLPs). None of it is the case here. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that it cannot be improved because of lack of reliable soures demonstrating notability per our criteria. If you disagree, then you should make some effort to prove it. Come on, you've been doing AFD long enough that you should have an inkling of how the process works. DreamGuy (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination didn't show you gave it a quick cursory glance for sources before nominating. No one is expecting you to source the entire article, but you should check up on its potential per the deletion guide. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Jenuk. 14:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I have added a reference and an external link to this article, which provides more than enough sources to validate this article as a keep. Esasus (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources, not random internet fluff. Those links failed both WP:RS and WP:EL, and quite pectuacularly I might add. DreamGuy (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Under its Russian name "Лысая гора", there appears to be many in-depth reliable sources that have been written about this topic. [7][8][9][10] Many more here. --Oakshade (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter (Dexter's Laboratory)[edit]

Totally unsourced, stuffed to the gills with OR (he's in California? I didn't know that). Yes, he is the titular character of his series and appeared in every episode, but I have been unable to find any sources pertaining to him as a whole. A couple sentences' worth of info in Dexter's Laboratory should be sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even after being fine with the last AfD I made for this article, I still don't see the justification behind it even with a snowy keep. As before, OR issues and too much of it where upon a stripdown you wouldn't have much more than what currently exists at List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory. treelo _radda 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then consider whe

ther to Merge into the main article. That discussion belongs elsewhere--there might well be a good reason to keep the details separate. Such discussions should be the way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge'. Just to make this interesting.--23prootie (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. This content isn't going to be deleted, and AFD isn't the right venue for merge discussions. JulesH (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Why isn't this going to be deleted? (2) The nominator didn't start a merge discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It shouldn't be deleted because there is verifiable content that could be included in another more comprehensive article even if this article is deemed not independently notable. (2) That's exactly the point—per WP:BEFORE, the nominator should have started a merge discussion rather than starting an AfD. DHowell (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory. The main character obviously needs to cover especially when it's a good idea to disambiguate with the serial killer of the same name. By redirecting the option to merge is open (after adding sources that is) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge isn't a bad idea, but I was worried about the redirect being undone. Go ahead and merge if necessary, but I would suggest protecting the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bold, revert, discuss is the way consensus has been achieved on a variety of editorial issues, so what makes you think it wouldn't work in this case? Forcing "consensus" through AfD and protected redirects is actually a rather poor alternative, and preemptive protection is against policy, to boot. DHowell (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, just look at the Alexis Grace controversy, User:Fritzpoll is getting a lot of HATE!!!!!!! for doing that so I suggest you don't.--23prootie (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and decide whether to merge elsewhere. Sources are mainly difficult to find because it is difficult to find search parameters that don't either bring up a ton of hits about the show itself, or ton of hits about the unrelated show Dexter. Nevertheless, in a cursory search I managed to find this, this, and this, which at least shows there is some coverage about the character to be found in third-party sources. DHowell (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory per Mgm. No non-trivial real-world information, entirely unsourced, unclear in how far this is all OR, but a redirect would leave the page intact for interested editors. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above with protection against recreation. Nothing more than in-universe trivia here. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing as a non-admin closure. Matt (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wellworths (GB)[edit]

Someone took over a former Woolworth's and turned it into a new store just the other day. Only two of the sources even mention the Wellworth's store. Yes, the article is fairly new, but given the circumstances I'm very tempted to say it's just a WP:ONEEVENT case. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:ONEEVENT covers biographies of living persons, which is not the purpose of this article. The article is poorly written, and its title probably needs to be revised, but that is not grounds for deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, ONEEVENT maybe isn't the best way to put it. More like ONETHING but that doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 20:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 20:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not notable right now, could be should the business expand to more branches but right now it's riding on inherited notability from the former business. treelo _radda 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Treelo said exactly what I was trying to say but couldn't find the words to say. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Just voting without reason carries no weight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, why are you quoting an essay at me? "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because just saying "keep" is hardly an argument. Deletion discussions are consensus, not votes, so just saying "keep and improve" without a reason has absolutely no weight in discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why it shouldn't add to consensus, I am saying keep, followed with a suggestion of improving. Please can you tell me what is wrong with that? I am trying, but struggling to take your comments in good faith Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's asking for you to provide a reason as to why you think it should be kept, nothing hostile meant by it. treelo _radda 21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This single local store has (for reasons which escape me) featured twice in significant features on the BBC's Breakfast news. This may confer a degree of notability, although I don't really think there's a place in an encyclopedia for a shop like this. Maybe a mention in the Woolworths article would suffice?--Michig (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe but as it is it doesn't exactly confer notability as most of the sourcing which exists is because of the circumstances surrounding it, not because the store has anything of note outside of it. It's all inherited notability for the sourcing, if it sprang up alone before Woolworths collapsed you wouldn't have heard anything from the national press regarding it. treelo _radda 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find anything specific in WP:N to suggest that this doesn't meet the notability guideline. Yes it may be a scrape through, but thats enough. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Woolworths Group#Wellworths. Whilst there has been some coverage in the media, it really is almost inherited notability from Woolworths. I suggest redirect this one to Woolworths, then should the coverage continue it can easily be recreated from the history. --Ged UK 22:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of inherited notability, which of course doesn't exist. Even in the current climate, the opening of a new shop would not even have been given the time of day by the local newspaper had it not been for the Woolies connection -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's definitely notable, the media coverage has been considerable, it's a unique endeavour and there are plans for expansion. The way in which the store has been reopened makes it notable. This isn't about whether or not it's important, it's about whether or not it's interesting enough to enough people to be on here, which it is. Tom walker (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst it is interesting now, I can't see it being held in the same regard come five years from now when this "unique" endeavour may have failed. That's just me navel-gazing I know but right now it's recentism making it interesting, it's what it is connected to what makes it notable and notability isn't inherited. Should it make itself successful and manage more stores beyond a local chain then it could be notable sure but it's just one store caught up in a flurry of nostalgia and emotion because it is copying the retail practices of a recently dead one. treelo _radda 11:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue of inherited notability is irrelevant to the question of deletion. The term Wellworths is clearly useful for searching and so consideration of alternatives to deletion has not been completed, as required by WP:BEFORE. "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - worldwide media coverage, just read a German article about it.[11] --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable business; recentism is temporarily working together with inherited notability, nostalgia, appreciation of a witty pun, and "But what if it's big someday? to give an illusion of importance. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - User:Orangemike nailed it. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I mentioned those things too! I gets no respect... treelo _radda 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is The Key[edit]

Reason WP:NSONGS (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability per WP:SONGS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this song. --Ged UK 22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Halloran[edit]

Fails WP:BIO regarding Actors. Not notable. Claim to fame is being in a Lottery commercial with a bear. Sc straker (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Sc straker (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable, seems to have done a lot more than the nom has suggested. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, Ok. But to me he does not meet the criteria for more specific WP:ENTERTAINER. --Sc straker (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has been in many different productions but only two of them seem notable, the bear commercial and Sweet Land. However his role in Sweet Land was not a significant one, and he therefore does not met WP:ENTERTAINER. --Megaboz (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the refrences demonstrate he is a working actor, but not one that is notable. The article overstates the coverage. For example, being "featured" in Playbill is no more than being mentioned as one of the actors in the announcment about a play. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep legitimate professional credits including NY stage. Claim to fame commercial has gained international press. Actor is listed on other reputable sites such as IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.246.129 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC) striking sockpuppet comment. MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines, role of Horst in Off B'way production of Bent is notable, actor is referenced on Wiki page for show. Actor has been discussed in Excellence in Brand Advertising and AdWeek per WP:ENTERTAINER#cite_note-note4-4. --Mickey Johnson (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC) — Mickey Johnson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment - Citation note 4 refers to this artilce at this time I'm posting this comment. It specifgically identifies Halloran's role a s small, and beeing "dicussed" in this article consistys of a single sentence. WWe need significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Mickey Johnson" also appears to be a sock puppet since the only contributions are to the page being considered for deletion. --76.178.143.62 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC) <- this was added by me. --Sc straker (talk) 20:04, 12 March 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 19:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article inflates his notability, he doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER Lets drink Tea 19:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable actor. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wilson Smith[edit]

Article about a nonnotable actor and the three "references" in the article are not reliable sources at all. Very little can be found about him through a google search and he is nonexistant in the news. The in-depth coverage about him required by WP:N, and WP:BLP can not be found. Themfromspace (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a search for the soap credit turns up a total of five mentions of the character he plays, which certainly goes a long way to supporting the nom's assertions. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 12 March 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 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable bio; could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn per BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew K. Pace[edit]

Completely fails notability standards per WP:CREATIVE -- no independent third party reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage that would in anyway give any sort of indication of notability. Of the two books, one doesn't appear to ave an ISBN, and being an author of a single book that is not notable, etc., is nowhere near our criteria. Article was also created as a response to another AFD, which seems to be a WP:POINT violation. I;d have prodded this, but the peron who created it has a history of deprodding tons of articles with no reasoning, so he'd no doubt deprod his own. DreamGuy (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nominator has a history of disagreement with article creator; not a good basis for discussion. . .Rcawsey (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The subject of the article is notable, and a quick search on google will find over 1,000 hits[12]. This is a bad faith nomination for deletion. Prior to nominating this article for deletion, DreamGuy removed an external link from the article [13] in an obvious attempt to weaken the article's claim of notability. I have since undone this change and added further links and references. The nominator, DreamGuy, is a well-documented wiki-stalker of mine. He has nominated this article, that I created, for the purpose of harassing me. The article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Esasus (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Esasus' comments Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as President of LITA, a significant specialty professional organization. Also head of a major department of OCLC, but I am not sure that would be sufficient. Just one notable book, with a number of reviews in the librarianship journals. [14] But Library Technology Reports is a journal, with long single-issue articles; what he wrote for it was an article, v. 38, no. 2, 78 pages long, not a book, though writing one for them is a non-trivial thing to do--counts basically as a book chapter in a collected work. As for prejudice, The link removed was to his author page on amazon [15] listing his two publications and saying nothing else--that does not count as weakening the claim of notability. As for the feeling between the two eds. here, I would suggest a discussion elsewhere. I & others have had some problems with each of them, though to different extents. DGG (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Notability has been established. freshacconci talktalk 01:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previouses. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just did some cleanup on the article (per MOS), and after some research it was clear that he's definitely notable. Yes, the article needs work. Yes, there were some ELs that needed to go—but that just means the article needs work, not that the subject isn't notable. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cleanup done by Dori. Nice job. And to Esasus, it may simply be that DreamGuy is doing some new page patrolling and is not a case of stalking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD is apparently related. --Crusio (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed... different article, possibly a hoax, that included informations that were actually about this Andrew K. Place. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG made his case quite well. Dream Focus 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG, well said. -- Banjeboi 18:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. New sources added to article are largely primary and don't add up to notability; one-year presidency of subgroup of ALA and writing a column for their trade magazine doesn't create notability, either. I am mystified by the keep !votes. THF (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, obviously not a copyright or GFDL violation. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madoff Investment Scandal[edit]

GFDLvio. DeteleWP:GFDL#4 violation. copied from Bernard Madoff. Nondk (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is linked from ITN. but GFDL-licensed copyright infringement article.--Nondk (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, what on earth are you talking about? Brand new user nominating this for deletion, looks like a bad-faith nomination to me. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amey Pandya[edit]

Child actor with no reliable sources indicating notability. Only sources given are an IMDB page and the person's own website. Even if all of the claims on the article can be supported using reliable third party sources the individual would not have had a career significant enough for a Wikipedia article at this time, as significant roles in significant productions are required. Was prodded, but prod was removed by an editor with a long history of removing prods for no justification. DreamGuy (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable actor lacking references to support notability. Awards not supported via Google available hits. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least one reference supports the awards [16] and the kid's own website points to several reliable sources that discuss him. [17] - Mgm|^(talk) 00:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tackle this article tomorrow if enough of the sources are in English. Anyone who wants to help is welcome. (Side note: I'm trying to get a WikiProject Children off the ground. I'd like to ask anyone who is interested in that to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals) - Mgm|^(talk) 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references in the actor's website are not valid URL's and the reference to the ABBY award in [18] is not valid - see ABBY 2006 results for the actual winners. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anyone should use the actor's website directly. But by dropping the titles and publication names with dates in LexisNexis for example, it is possible to get the actual published article and verify it. As for the awards. It could easily be a mixup. A couple of days ago (in 2009) I saw someone win a 2008 award. It could simply be a naming thing gone wrong. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, he's enough of a star to be chosen as part of a jury panel.[19] His film and tv roles are harder to judge because I have no indication of the importance of said roles. The English spelling and grammar errors in the Indian media aren't helping. As for the ABBY. It appears that the ad won it and not him specifically. I'll be looking into the other award mentions. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found atleast one source other then IMDB and his own website for a dance competition he was in last year. I will look for more sources. Deavenger (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has appeared in many films, TV commercials, television series, and reality show. Links added to the article.--Ekabhishek (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP if he was an american/hollywood child actor, we would ~~not be having this debate~~ quite possibly be having this debate, but the page would almost certainly end up being kept.. he has a respectable credit list, he's on imdb, if you google his name, you get credible results for him on web, image, and video searches. he's known in the community of people who follow bollywood films. deleting would be a STRONG CULTURAL BIAS, there are a very large number of wikip articles about minor english-speaking actors, who worked in the USA and/or the UK (& yes i know about the perils of justifying one wikip article's existence with the existence of another, but the point is fair in this case: wikip has a policy of allowing articles on relatively minor actors; in practice, that policy is biased in favour of english-speaking performers who work in western countries, then non-english speaking actors/artists in developed, "western" countries, then the "3rd world"; compare the amount of material english wikip has on hollywood and bollywood. there is an order-of-magnitude difference) either we allow articles on minor actors/performers, or we don't. if we do, then KEEP. if we don't, then i know a few dozen afd's right now, same justification. i have even edited on a few of them :P Lx 121 (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up: did anybody cross-check on say, the hindi wikip (or other south asian & area languages)? i can't read the script(s), but if somebody who can would do so, it would be germane to this discussion to know if the subject is covered on other language wikip's, especially those for indian/southasian languages. it would also be nice to have the language links on the article itself Lx 121 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability - the article sources provide little more than guff. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mall InSecurity[edit]

There's no proof that this film exists, or if it does, that its notable. Only major contributor to this page is User:observeandreport, and the website linked (observeandreport.com) alleges that both Paul Blart:Mall Cop and Observe and Protect infringe on this film's plot. However, the website is actually a blog, which does not meet WP:RS. I can't find any source that says why this film is notable. Firestorm ^Talk 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a complete lack of coverage aboutt his film. -- 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence it will be released commercially. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. From the discussion, it is apparent that this is a cleanup issue. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop culture and Islam[edit]

This looks more like a list of Muslim rappers, with a bit of original research tacked onto the beginning, and actually says nothing about the purported topic, "Hip Hop culture and Islam". Biruitorul ^Talk 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable topic; the introduction of Islam in the African-American Experience has an entire section entitled "Islam and Hip Hop Culture", and Muslim Networks From Hajj to Hip Hop by Miriam Cooke and Bruce Lawrence has an entire chapter on the subject. Also, The Five Percenters: Islam, Hip Hop and the Gods of New York by Michael Muhammad Knight looks like a book that would have substantial coverage of the subject. This article needs editing and improvement, not deletion. DHowell (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article needs to establish the importance of links between Muslims and Hip Hop by expanding the opening paragraphs with appropriate citations. Otherwise it is merely another redundant list of random entries.Isabelle 67 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 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) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator and with JamesBurns' observation, and would add that the list is unreferenced and does not cite the music scene in any Islamic nation. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Article appears to be a notable topic. Definitely needs sourcing though. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Schoerner[edit]

A rather obnoxious piece of self-promotion (Dayfornight.tv is the creator, and, not surprisingly, [20] is Schoerner's website). "His seminal and innovative explorations of the digital image"? "Numerous group shows"? "Numerous books"? Please. True, the links mention him, but only in passing. Fails WP:BIO. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, tending toward keep. Wikipedia's articles on photographers are shot through with rather (or more than rather) obnoxious pieces of self-promotion. Nothing new here. (Indeed, this article was mild.) The task is to see through the bullshit at what, if anything, is beneath. If there is something, then you delete the bullshit. (Or, depending on your editing tastes, you delete the bullshit and see if anything is left.) I see somebody who verifiably (i) is the sole creator of a book published by Phaidon, not that common a feat even in this century when Phaidon seems eager for the gimmicky (as for this particular book) and vapid, and (ii) has been one of several contributors to exhibitions of some note. (Another contributor to "I Shot Norman Foster" was Chris Steele-Perkins [a red link as I write this], a first-rate photographer.) There's next to no evidence for the claims of having worked for this or that fashion company or magazine, but such claims never interest me anyway unless they are clearly described. (And I figure that the tiny percentage of fashion photography that's of more than the most ephemeral interest will sooner or later find its way into books.) I think the content of the article is well on the way to satisfying WP:BIO, even if it's not quite there yet. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC) ......... Converted to "keep" Hoary (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started Chris Steele-Perkins.--Cerejota (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hoary (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:LARDed and WP:PEACOCK, non-trivial to find information that is not self-published, but can find the claimed multiple books, and can find the multiple group shows, as well being represented by a rather prestigious and well-known Camilla Lowther Management. Yeah, photographers tend to be an egomaniacal, self-promoting set, but if we allow non-notable porno actresses from Japan to remain in wikipedia, why not someone with real talent and notability. One man's cruft is anothers invaluable contribution. However, this article needs work like yesterday, it is an aberration.--Cerejota (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I clicked on the external links to the New York Times and the Guardian, and he is there. That's two major news sources that reference him, so that counts as notable. I'm not sure why the Guardian has those four pictures there, or why some consider someone bent over with a hole in their underwear to be artwork, but, whatever. I'm not one to judge. Dream Focus 05:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nagraj#Powers and abilities. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powers and abilities of Nagraj[edit]

Entirely in-universe and sourced to a fansite. Fails WP:RS. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the character article. The main article it was split from is in desparate need of sources and this contains some details that should be included if referenced. I'd be happy to give someone the time to whip the main article into shape and this content might be useful for it. If the main gets deleted, the redirect would become pointless, so the redirect wouldn't be floating in limbo with this move. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There is enough material for one good article. DGG (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Nagraj#Powers and abilities per nom. Since this spin-out article consists almost entirely of detailed description written from an in-universe perspective, I am not convinced that there is any content worth merging. The main article already contains a description of the character's abilities. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nagraj#Powers and abilities. Entirely in-universe article with no real-world notability; I don't think there's any content here that needs to be kept. Robofish (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wealthiest people by percentage of GDP[edit]

This article has several severe problems:

It's factually incorrect. The five people listed are not the five richest people by percentage of GDP. For example, by a quick cross-checking of the List of heads of state and government by net worth and the List of countries by GDP (PPP), the princes of Liechtenstein and Monaco should both make the list.
There are no sources available to correct it - for many countries, we don't know the richest inhabitant, especially for countries with low GDPs whose richest inhabitants are more likely to have a large net worth compared to their countries' GDP. Thus, we cannot produce a factually correct list of the richest people by percentage of GDP.
As a consequence of 2), what we have is original synthesis of published information (namely, of some people's net worth and of their countries' GDP), expressly forbidden by WP:OR.

Besides, the list is pointless because net worth and GDP are in no meaningful way comparable. It had been nominated last October; the discussion closed with no consensus. The article hasn't improved, and I doubt it ever will or even can. Huon (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is textbook original research combining two sources to different sources to create something new that gives the impression it's a common standard. I agree with the nominator that it's not a meaningful comparison and it's impossible to get right without calculating percentages for all the countries in the world. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is still stupid original synthesis. How does Hassanal Bolkiah have 1,358 percent of his nation's gross domestic product? Because GDP is the value of from the sale, in a year's time, of a nation's goods and services; and it's being compared--- for no particular reason other than it makes an impressive, but pointles statistic --to a person's accumulation over many years worth of wealth. What's that supposed to prove? "Year of peak earnings" is thrown in there for no apparent reason, but it's misleading, since it suggests that Bill Gates earned 90 billion dollars in 1999-- but 90 billion is Bill's worth, not his earnings in any year. This type of idiot statistic has no place in an encyclopedia, online or paper. It would be one thing if we compared Bill's revenues in 1999 against the nation's revenues; or if we compared Bill's net worth to the worth of the nation. This is kind of like saying, "Babe Ruth had 714 home runs in his career; there were 922 home runs hit in both leagues in 1927, Babe's peak year-- and that's an incredible 77 percent!!!" It's idiotic. Mandsford (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless way of measuring wealth. If someone moves to a smaller country with a smaller GDP, their ranking on this list will shoot up since the new GDP is lower. They have not become any wealthier. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original synthesis involving meaningless comparison of two distinct economic measures. In addition to the fact that GDP is more comparable to income than wealth, GDP is country- and year-specific whereas accumulated wealth is not. Straightforward comparison of GDP and wealth figures fails to produce meaningful results. The idea for this list was well-intentioned, but it was flawed from the beginning. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to -izzle. WP:SNOW redir (non-admin closure) Wiggles _oinks ^waddles 19:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hizzey[edit]

WP:NFT neologism. Failed {{prod}} by sole author removal. Sole reference is bogus. I was tempted to Speedy this per WP:SNOW but thought otherwise. Toddst1 (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is clearly a hoax. Colds7ream (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as hoax. Should be speedied IMO. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G3) This is vandalism. Peacock (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't vandalism, and it's not a hoax, it's just a poorly written jokey article. The AFD should be allowed to run, at least until it snows. All that said, WP isn't a slang dictionary; the challenge during the AFD will be finding meaningful citations that can make a better fleshed-out article workable. Townlake (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but there's no need to be speedy about it. And like Townlake says, it's not vandalism. henrik•talk 17:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searching google brings up nothing but this so far: 1 (suggest you Ctrl+F Hizzey or look under Leo) the author amusingly enough doesn't know what it means either. If it is not a hoax it can be deleted under: WP:NOTDICDEF or if it is under: WP:HOAX, so it makes little difference whether it is or not Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete, Hizzey is a term similar to Hello, used by many students and the article is currently awaiting sourcesHutchid1 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To -izzle, like hizzy is redirected. Hipocrite (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd work for me. Townlake (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hideaway Pizza[edit]

Not notable. Poorly Written. Self published sources. It's a local Oklahoma pizza place and all the sources are from their own website and 2 local newspapers that briefly mention the spot. The article doesn't even have any information about the spot aside from that it exists and it's location. Not encyclopedic in the least and adds no value to Wikipedia. Keeping sets precedence for every single mom and pop store or business to have their own Wikipedia article. Nefariousski (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May just scrape through on the notability front, it appears to have a long history which could be dug into. The article just needs improving, that's all. "Poorly Written" is not a valid reason for deletion. "Keeping sets precedence for every single mom and pop store or business to have their own Wikipedia article. " - No it doesn't? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What history? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial coverage exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the article or its sources that encourages me with regards to notability. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage exists, it just doesn't happen to be in the New York Times or Washington Post. The nomination's reference to articles on "every single mom and pop store or business" takes the nomination off the rails; I'm not sure what the real rationale is here. Townlake (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google News search turns up coverage that confirms the subject's notability: [21]. If anyone needs to review the articles that require AccessMyLibrary.com access, please let me know and I will provide copies of the texts. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We objectively evaluate a subject's notability through coverage in reliable sources. We do not dismiss a mom and pop operation because it is small. We dismiss it because it doesn't receive coverage. In this case, the mom and pop operation has received that coverage. The Tulsa World source in the article has this pizza operation as a the primary source. This article calls it a Stillwater tradition. It even made it on to MSNBC. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Before nominating, I checked for news sources, and could find nothing prior to reports of his death, so I nominated this in good faith, having already done the rounds of putting several three word versions through CSD. There was nothing that indicated more than passing notability (for dieing), andthe nom was in good faith. However, the fact that several people appear to have heard of him convinces me that sources will be found. (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lewis, Jr.[edit]

Delete nn businessman, apparently best known for being killed in a car crash yesterday Mayalld (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparent bad-faith edit (THE ARTICLE IS CLEARLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION). Charles "Mask" Lewis, Jr. was a celebrity BEFORE his death in an unfortunate car crash yesterday. His death only crystallized the fact that there was no article; it does not mean there should not have been one. Given his accomplishment, building a business from the trunk of his car into a multi-million dollar empire, should speak for itself. But if not, it is clear that "Mask" was also a living comic book character and MMA promoter, who related to the fans on TV. And that's why he WAS on TV.Ryoung122 17:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing bad faith about it (and I would ask that you WP:AGF rather than flinging such accusations about. It is apparent that until yesterday, nobody thought him notable enough to have an article, but he dies, and suddenly he becomes notable! If the guy turns out to be notable, then fair enough, but accusations of bad faith are a bit strong! Mayalld (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm all for deleting non-notable "Wikipedia is not a memorial" articles. I pushed to get junk like Keeley Dorsey deleted (a minor college football player most notable for dying on the practice field, and with no track record other than high school). In this case, this is more of a case where a person had already built a track record that was worthy of an article, and the death simply crystallized the realization that no one did what anyone could have done. To be fair: if someone starts a company selling T-shirts out of their trunk in 1997 and ten years later that company is pulling in $100 million, that's notable. More than that, "Mask" had also become a "reality-TV" star on Versus, and was also a UFC fight promoter and promoted the careers of individual fighters. The interesting thing to me is that, when I saw the TV show, I thought this guy was just some big lug...he came across as obnoxious, like some dumb person hired to get ratings for teens/kids. Little did I know that Charles Lewis was HIS OWN BOSS. Often, those who have the money have puppets on a string...here this guy was his own puppet.Ryoung122 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ryoung122. To get article ideas I read the news and if someone is reported dead, I Google them to see what they did in their life. Their death is clearly not the claim of notability made, but the trigger that got the contributor writing. If the nominator's reasoning would be applied consistent I couldn't expand the article about the doctor who invented the artificial kidney. Still, the article is in bad shape, I sugges the creators pull their weight and actually cover the multi-million dollar part of the business. -Mgm|^(talk) 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ample reliable sources about him and his role in establishing a multi-million dollar clothing business exist. The article as it currently stands is shite but that's not an excuse for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —92.40.72.205 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —92.40.72.205 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge with TapouT. I have not seen substantial coverage focusing on Lewis himself, but if found I'll go "keep" instead. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't favor a merge because if one drew a Venn diagram, this guy already overlaps with TapouT (clothing line) and TapouT (TV series), UFC and Kimbo Slice. Overlapping with more than one article is often a sign for the biographical justification for the article's existence. Also, this man was a multi-tool player: he wore the "hats" of businessman, entrepreneur, promoter, TV character/comic character. Perhaps not the brightest bulb in the socket, but his track record of building connections means that his biography is encyclopedic: in other words, one can learn not just about Charles Lewis, Jr or about "Mask": one can learn how a person built their pathway to success. If the icing on the cake came from a spinout, so be it.Ryoung122 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just because the article isnt in tip-top shape at the moment doesnt mean it should be deleted. It has been created recently and can be improved.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nothing indicates deletion is necessary here.--Judo112 (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable subject, though the article needs some editing. But we don't delete articles because they need work. --Leifern (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a long article, but I suspect there's probably quite a bit of work that one can do to expand the section on his business development. Coverage suggests notability, considernig where it's coming from. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Powell[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, and badly. Enigma^msg 16:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —92.40.28.80 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE, and all the sources are primary, therefore fails the basic criteria for biographys too. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I agree with nom and Spitfire's conclusions.--VS ^talk 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC) --VS ^talk 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photographic genre of people in parties striking poses for the camera has never held the slightest interest for me, but it's not every party photographer who's the subject of a monograph from Powerhouse, and so I thought Powell might be worth a second look. "Fails WP:CREATIVE", we read above; yet a quick look in Google Books turns up one book (from Princeton University Press, no less) with a mention of our man as the photographer who was particularly influential in documenting the 1980s hip-hop and party scene. Granted, this is in a peculiarly breathless book for a university press, one whose author elsewhere earnestly reports on the brands of people's clothes and unashamedly uses gushy if vapid descriptions such as "legendary". Still, it might count for something. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the claims made for him are now minor, but the evidence for these is good. -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The new claims still do not make him notable per WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. Enigma^msg 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The former has various criteria. The first of these: The person is regarded as an important figure [...] Currid's book is one piece of evidence for that. The last: The person's work [...] had works in many significant libraries. (Pretty garbled, but I think I get the drift.) While Public Access is nowhere in COPAC, it's in the Library of Congress, Harvard Uni library, and NY Public Library (LEO). I can't work up any enthusiasm for him, but if he merits a "strong delete" from you, I wonder what you say to the people whose articles I immediately vote to zap. -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First one is easy- Regarded as an important figure, means evidence that people regard him as an important figure, which is basically finding 3prd party material saying so. it has to be actually shown, and I'd like to see the quote: mention on one page of one book is not really enough.

Second "many significant libraries" has to be interpreted in terms of what would be expected. For current American novels, I expect at least 2 or 300 in WorldCat. In particular, presence of an American book in LC is meaningless, and Harvard and NYPL get almost everything possible. WorldCat shows that his 3 books are held in 40, 30 and 17 US libraries. [22]. But this is a special genre--books of photographs by an artistic photographer. They really need to be judged more by the standards for artists in general. I'd expect museum holdings, usually. But perhaps his works arent the sort that museums collect. Creative professionals is such a wide combination of areas that it takes careful interpretation in terms of what's expected in the specific genre. DGG (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too am unimpressed by the one mention (even a strong one) in a single gossipy book. (What has Princeton UP come to?) And I'd expect museum holdings, but I thought that that was just me being "elitist". WorldCat does show that Public Access is held in the library of the Smithsonian Institution and also the libraries of a small number of US universities that I wouldn't have expected either to have large budgets or to be major beneficiaries of publisher largesse. For what those holdings are worth (frankly I have no idea). -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott MacIntyre[edit]

And him. --Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 16:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No reason given for nom Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the nominator elaborate on the reason for proposing deletion of this article? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assume it is a good faith, but probably misguided attempt to be consistent. Since other finalists' article(s) have been deleted(?) they have decided to see if they can all be deleted. But the problem is we can't just make sweeping generalizations like that. Each subject or article needs to be considered independently and we need to make policy- and guideline- based arguments for deletion or inclusion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is as a result of the delete close at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexis_Grace_(2nd_nomination). Personally, I think a redirect would be a far better outcome of this process. Similar arguments apply to all of these as were applied at this particular AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But still, what is the argument for deletion for this article, not a different article. It is Scott Maclntyre that is being discussed, not Alexis Grace. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or redirect~~ to American Idol (season 8). Whilst the nomination appears a little pointed, I think these should be discussed on the same grounds as the participants at Alexis Grace mentioned. A lack of notability beyond the single event (per WP:BLP1E) of being in American Idol. WikiProject precedents or standards are irrelevant in comparison to our own policies - we already have an article covering the event, so individual articles can be merged there if there is any additional material, in which case a redirect should take place. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without having too much knowledge of the article... "If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate." could probably be applied here, as I understand it American Idol is a rather large event over there, and the contestants have a rather large role within it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seriously wish these had been nommed all together - save our copy-pasting! :) I don't think the event is significant - I interpret that to refer to something more important than a TV show. Say the assassin in a presidential assassin - you would expect an article on them, because it was a significant event - a TV show is unlikely to be significant in the same way. Your mileage may, of course, vary Fritzpoll (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - appears to have some notability because of the number of awards, scholarships, etc. that he has achieved in addition to the Idol appearance. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable outside of the American Idol series for academic background and singing awards. Multiple reliable secondary sources (would like to see more, but bearable). Gazi moff 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Additional experience which combines up with Idol to warrant the article. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The "additional experience" is winning an insignificant local award from the University he attended. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of notable information besides Idol, and will need a full article anyway after Idol experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyo32 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Featured by CNN.--23prootie (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is no reason for this nonsense. The article has staying power, and I don't know why Alexis Grace was deleted.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was due to politicking of a few, If you saw the previous discussions you would see how some HATED the show wuth Passion.23prootie (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep notable artist. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 13:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes multiple criteria in WP:Music, most importantly #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." American Idol is one of the biggest music competitions.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge or redirect should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Rounds[edit]

Her, too. --Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason given for nom. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is as a result of the delete close at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexis_Grace_(2nd_nomination). Personally, I think a redirect would be a far better outcome of this process. Similar arguments apply to all of these as were applied at this particular AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But still, what is the argument for deletion for this article, not a different article. It is Lil Rounds that is being discussed, not Alexis Grace. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to American Idol (season 8). Whilst the nomination appears a little pointed, I think these should be discussed on the same grounds as the participants at Alexis Grace mentioned. A lack of notability beyond the single event (per WP:BLP1E) of being in American Idol. WikiProject precedents or standards are irrelevant in comparison to our own policies - we already have an article covering the event, so individual articles can be merged there if there is any additional material, in which case a redirect should take place. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without having too much knowledge of the article... "If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate." could probably be applied here, as I understand it American Idol is a rather large event over there, and the contestants have a rather large role within it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seriously wish these had been nommed all together - save our copy-pasting! :) I don't think the event is significant - I interpret that to refer to something more important than a TV show. Say the assassin in a presidential assassin - you would expect an article on them, because it was a significant event - a TV show is unlikely to be significant in the same way. Your mileage may, of course, vary Fritzpoll (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the grand scheme of things, this TV show is a very significant TV show, not just to television, but to the music industry too. I agree that what I quoted is open to interpretation, but looking at things relatively, it seems to apply. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But the section you quoted clearly refers to historical significance. In full, it reads: If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented historic events, for example John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The historic significance of events should be indicated by the persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. Transient press coverage of a story does not generally indicate an individual who would meet this exception, even if there are multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. - there is no evidence of persistent coverage of these individuals, so they don't get articles...yet! If any of them get to number 1, or anything like that, then the articles should be recreated. But they aren't notable just for being in the TV show, which is essentially a temporary event, meaning that all coverage of them is transient until they do something else. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I read the last bit of that section as giving an example of the application of the guideline, rather than saying it only applies to historical significance. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm pretty certain it's to do with historical significance, because it meshes with WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SBST in terms of Wikipedia's desire to only record individuals who have historical significance. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the grand scheme of things, no TV show is very significant. The war in Iraq is significant. Aids in Africa is significant. The first black President in the US is significant. American Idol is a TV show. It's not significant. Looking at things relatively, this person is a contestant on a TV show, having done nothing of actual significance or note. Also, notability is not inherited. Just because the show is notable does not mean everyone appearing on it is. ₳dam Zel 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - People who live under a rock, somewhere in outer space, or the planet Pluto are the only ones who think American Idol is not historically significant. Like it or not it defined the first decade of the 21st century.--23prootie (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to series article. Per WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for one event. If the subject becomes notable outside of this event, they may warrant an article. In addition, I'm concerned about the article's poor level of sourcing per WP:BIO - for a biography of a living person the required standard of sourcing is set quite high. This content would be much more suitable in the series article already mentioned. In addition, this article fails WP:RS as it has no reliable, secondary sources indepenent of the subject. Gazi moff 17:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all the content is related to AI. She's done nothing outside the show so it all can be covered in context. (I don't see the need to delete the history. If she ever does pass notability guidelines, it would be better to have the history around to jumpstart the article. If anyone worries about people reverting a redirect, I recommend protecting it instead). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the word 'is' in my comment above, because it was missing. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No precedent fr deletion.--23prootie (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement doesn't explain how the article meets our policies for inclusion. Could you expand on this? Gazi moff 07:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion was only initiated after Alexis's article was deleted. even though all Idol finalists tend to have their own articles. She is still on the show so anyway.--23prootie (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reson for all of this drama.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement doesn't explain how the article meets our policies for inclusion. Could you expand on this? Gazi moff 07:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, for now - She has no pre-Idol claims of fame (other than her sob story which is well-covered elsewhere). CrazyC83 (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to American Idol (season 8), non-notable. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. BLP1E. Subject has done nothing notable. Simply appearing on a TV show does does not make one notable. ₳dam Zel 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the keep arguments above are basically stating past precedent, which doesn't override WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Unless she does something else notable in the future that changes her notability, no one will remember nor care about her next season. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes multiple criteria in WP:Music, most importantly #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." American Idol is one of the biggest music competitions.

Please take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because an article exists on a similar topic or subject, doesn't mean another should. Wikipedia operates without setting precedent in it's actions, and instead uses policies and guidelines in order to judge content. Many thanks, Gazi moff 14:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your point, after all Allison Iraheta was not yet famous three years ago even though she won a reality show. But what I'm worried about is what happens next if this gets deleted. Remember that this was triggered only when Alexis Grace's article get deleted as some sort of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth thing. If this gets deleted then who knows who's next. I have a feeling that these discussions will be used in the future to delete every other contestant of American Idol up to the point of Kelly Clarkson ether by a crazy fan as payback or a hater of the show. So rather than waste our time by creating a HUGE MESS, I suggest that this article be kept, along with the other contestants this season until perhaps when the season is over.--23prootie (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Obviously notable. No response to my comment needed. Gage (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE for mroe information on why this is unsuitable for deletion discussions. Many thanks, Gazi moff 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough for wikipedia ♣Princess Clown♥ 23:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE for mroe information on why this is unsuitable for deletion discussions. Many thanks, Gazi moff 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggeted that the articles be kept until a guideline is established on how to deal with these articles but the debate should happen in between seasons. Deleting them now would only inflame the situation and we'll have to deal wuth crazy fans annoyed that their favorite got deleted (Note: See User:Fritzpoll). For now the articles should stay. Please bear with that.--23prootie (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, If this gets deleted then you might as well protest to have all finalists from seasons one through seven deleted as well. If you think, that means there's at least 70+ of these articles.-24.92.44.95 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Point nomination, article passes criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, thereby passing WP:BIO. Aspects (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note at the bottom of WP:MUSICBIO, I'd argue that the sbject isn't notable outside of the contest they're taking part in, and that a redirect may be appropriate. Gazi moff 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Nuñez (singer)[edit]

Discuss the alleged irrelevance of this finalist's article. --Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is as a result of the delete close at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexis_Grace_(2nd_nomination). Personally, I think a redirect would be a far better outcome of this process. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can the nominator give an actual reason for discussing deletion of this article? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But still, what is the argument for deletion for this article, not a different article. It is Jorge Nuñez that is being discussed, not Alexis Grace. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to American Idol (season 8). Whilst the nomination appears a little pointed, I think these should be discussed on the same grounds as the participants at Alexis Grace mentioned. A lack of notability beyond the single event (per WP:BLP1E) of being in American Idol. WikiProject precedents or standards are irrelevant in comparison to our own policies - we already have an article covering the event, so individual articles can be merged there if there is any additional material, in which case a redirect should take place. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without having too much knowledge of the article... "If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate." could probably be applied here, as I understand it American Idol is a rather large event over there, and the contestants have a rather large role within it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seriously wish these had been nommed all together - save our copy-pasting! :) I don't think the event is significant - I interpret that to refer to something more important than a TV show. Say the assassin in a presidential assassin - you would expect an article on them, because it was a significant event - a TV show is unlikely to be significant in the same way. Your mileage may, of course, vary Fritzpoll (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the grand scheme of things, this TV show is a very significant TV show, not just to television, but to the music industry too. I agree that what I quoted is open to interpretation, but looking at things relatively, it seems to apply. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But the section you quoted clearly refers to historical significance. In full, it reads: If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented historic events, for example John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The historic significance of events should be indicated by the persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. Transient press coverage of a story does not generally indicate an individual who would meet this exception, even if there are multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. - there is no evidence of persistent coverage of these individuals, so they don't get articles...yet! If any of them get to number 1, or anything like that, then the articles should be recreated. But they aren't notable just for being in the TV show, which is essentially a temporary event, meaning that all coverage of them is transient until they do something else. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —92.40.72.205 (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. —92.40.72.205 (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - I read the last bit of that section as giving an example of the application of the guideline, rather than saying it only applies to historical significance. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm pretty certain it's to do with historical significance, because it meshes with WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SBST in terms of Wikipedia's desire to only record individuals who have historical significance. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment to keep. -The television argument is kinda stupid. Its more than just tv, American Idol is more of a "subcultural phenomenon" and institution given the attention it receives not only from mainstream media and but also from informal sources such as online communities and blogs like Vote For The Worst. I'm sure it will be the subject of study in the future with regards to its cultural impact during the early 21st century. ~~Also, I'm kinda disturbed by Fritzpoll's sexual fetish on assassins, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~--23prootie (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Note: Do not make personal attacks to others, per WP:NPA. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Should you continue to make personal attacks, you may find yourself blocked per Wikipedia's blocking policy. Many thanks, Gazi moff 13:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to series article. Per WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for one event. If the subject becomes notable outside of this event, they may warrant an article. In addition, I'm concerned about the article's poor level of sourcing per WP:BIO - for a biography of a living person the required standard of sourcing is set quite high. This content would be much more suitable in the series article already mentioned. As this article only sources to a primary source, it also fails WP:RS for not using reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. Gazi moff 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i say keep, he has reached notability.--Judo112 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate on why? And how he is not simply famous for one event? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- I know this individual because lately this is the only subject that the Spanish media talks about, 1. So, I searched Google news to find out if this was only a Puerto Rican topic and to my surprise the national media is part of this , 2, including Reuters, Hispanic Business and several articles by Latina Magazine 1 2. If the consensus is to delete this kind of articles, I think that a redirect is practical due to his notability in the Latin American media. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Since he's done nothing outside the show his contribution to American Idol can be covered in the relevant season article. There's insufficient information to support a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect - He was eliminated too quickly to actually establish notability, he had some media coverage, but that was recentism at best. The established precedent in such cases is to simply redirect the titlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

Your signature with timestamp to the relevant season. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Season is not yet over. Time will tell if he will b famous or not.--23prootie (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He was eliminated already, the rest of the season isn't really relevant here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caribbean H.Q., non-relevant person. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. He's done nothing significant. Simply appearing on a show does not make one notable. ₳dam Zel 19:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the keep arguments above are basically stating past precedent, which doesn't override WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Unless he does something else notable in the future that changes his notability, no one will remember nor care about him next season. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes multiple criteria in WP:Music, most importantly #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." American Idol is one of the biggest music competitions.
Delete: Has done nothing notable outside of Idol. JamesBurns (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment leaning towards keep: It's too early to tell whether he will do anything notable or not, the page should stay for at least five months, just like Amanda Overmyer and David Hernandez.
  - Please take a look at WP:SCRABBLE and WP:CRYSTAL - Wikipedia doesn't create articles with the possibility that someone may become notable later on. The correct procedure is to wait until they become notable, then create the article. Gazi moff 13:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your point, after all Allison Iraheta was not yet famous three years ago even though she won a reality show. But what I'm worried about is what happens next if this gets deleted. Remember that this was triggered only when Alexis Grace's article get deleted as some sort of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth thing. If this gets deleted then who knows who's next. I have a feeling that these discussions will be used in the future to delete every other contestant of American Idol up to the point of Kelly Clarkson ether by a crazy fan as payback or a hater of the show. So rather than waste our time by creating a HUGE MESS, I suggest that this article be kept, along with the other contestants this season until perhaps when the season is over.--23prootie (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article is deleted Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony might get annoyed.--23prootie (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHe is a member of the most watched show on TV. He also is a finalist on that show. How is he not notable?--Jojhutton (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He isn't a member, he's a contestant. And per WP:BLP1E, being a contestant in a single contest or season doesn't ensure notability. Gazi moff 13:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Obviously notable. No response to my comment needed. Gage (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE for more information on why this is unsuitable for deletion discussions. Many thanks, Gazi moff 00:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E & WP:N - most of the sources are blogs. Appearing once on a show really doesn't qualify one for a berth in an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggeted that the articles be kept until a guideline is established on how to deal with these articles but the debate should happen in between seasons. Deleting them now would only inflame the situation and we'll have to deal wuth crazy fans annoyed that their favorite got deleted (Note: See User:Fritzpoll). For now the articles should stay. Please bear with that.--23prootie (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to sound dogmatic, but appeasing crazy fans shouldn't be a value we place a great deal of emphasis on. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes they are notable. Look at how much coverage they get when eliminated. And we never know what will happen later. Chris Sligh has written a hit for Rascal Flatts 2 years after being on the show. Actually almost 3. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Point nomination, article passes criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, thereby passing WP:BIO. Aspects (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note at the bottom of WP:MUSICBIO, I'd argue that the sbject isn't notable outside of the contest they're taking part in, and that a redirect may be appropriate. Gazi moff 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion to redirect should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sarver (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Since Alexis Grace's page was obliterated, it is necessary to discuss and reconsider deleting just about everyone. After all, there's barely any room for these people, right? --Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 16:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is as a result of the delete close at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexis_Grace_(2nd_nomination). Personally, I think a redirect would be a far better outcome of this process. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But still, what is the argument for deletion for this article, not a different article. It is Michael Sarver that is being discussed, not Alexis Grace. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator is basically referring to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Can an actually reason for deletion be given? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to American Idol (season 8). Whilst the nomination appears a little pointed, I think these should be discussed on the same grounds as the participants at Alexis Grace mentioned. A lack of notability beyond the single event (per WP:BLP1E) of being in American Idol. WikiProject precedents or standards are irrelevant in comparison to our own policies - we already have an article covering the event, so individual articles can be merged there if there is any additional material, in which case a redirect should take place. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without having too much knowledge of the article... "If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate." could probably be applied here, as I understand it American Idol is a rather large event over there, and the contestants have a rather large role within it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seriously wish these had been nommed all together - save our copy-pasting! :) I don't think the event is significant - I interpret that to refer to something more important than a TV show. Say the assassin in a presidential assassin - you would expect an article on them, because it was a significant event - a TV show is unlikely to be significant in the same way. Your mileage may, of course, vary Fritzpoll (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the grand scheme of things, this TV show is a very significant TV show, not just to television, but to the music industry too. I agree that what I quoted is open to interpretation, but looking at things relatively, it seems to apply. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But the section you quoted clearly refers to historical significance. In full, it reads: If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented historic events, for example John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The historic significance of events should be indicated by the persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. Transient press coverage of a story does not generally indicate an individual who would meet this exception, even if there are multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. - there is no evidence of persistent coverage of these individuals, so they don't get articles...yet! If any of them get to number 1, or anything like that, then the articles should be recreated. But they aren't notable just for being in the TV show, which is essentially a temporary event, meaning that all coverage of them is transient until they do something else. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I read the last bit of that section as giving an example of the application of the guideline, rather than saying it only applies to historical significance. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm pretty certain it's to do with historical significance, because it meshes with WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SBST in terms of Wikipedia's desire to only record individuals who have historical significance. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        American Idol is historically significant!!!!!!!!!!!!--23prootie (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to series article. Per WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for one event. If the subject becomes notable outside of this event, they may warrant an article. In addition, I'm concerned about the article's poor level of sourcing per WP:BIO - for a biography of a living person the required standard of sourcing is set quite high. This content would be much more suitable in the series article already mentioned. Gazi moff 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, at least for now - Unlike some others, he has nothing else to warrant keeping the article. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect which is the common outcome for reality show contestants who did nothing outside the show they appeared in. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Apparently, you can delete articles without reason.--23prootie (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't state a reason why the article may beet our wider policies for inclusion. Please see WP:ILIKEIT. Gazi moff 07:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per 23prootie. Still performing. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - BLP1E. Contestants on Jeopardy appear for multiple episodes, too. This does not make them notable. There have been no reasons to keep based in policy. Subjects fails to meet notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the keep arguments above are basically stating past precedent, which doesn't override WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Unless he does something else notable in the future that changes his notability, no one will remember nor care about him next season. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes multiple criteria in WP:Music, most importantly #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." American Idol is one of the biggest music competitions.

Keep - There's no point in deleting the article when it is probably going to get recreated again. Keeping the article is more practical than having a messy undelete when he finally releases an album. And he is still in the show so a final conclusion on his notability is yet to be determined.--23prootie (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You can't state your argument repeatedly, although you can go back to your original comment above and bolster your argument with this if you wish. However, please note WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SCRABBLE - we don't create articles on the basis that someone may become ntoable at some stage in the future. The correct procedure is to wait until they become notable outside of the TV series, then create the article once notability outside WP:BLP1E is assured. Gazi moff 14:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your point, after all Allison Iraheta was not yet famous three years ago even though she won a reality show. But what I'm worried about is what happens next if this gets deleted. Remember that this was triggered only when Alexis Grace's article get deleted as some sort of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth thing. If this gets deleted then who knows who's next. I have a feeling that these discussions will be used in the future to delete every other contestant of American Idol up to the point of Kelly Clarkson ether by a crazy fan as payback or a hater of the show. So rather than waste our time by creating a HUGE MESS, I suggest that this article be kept, along with the other contestants this season until perhaps when the season is over.--23prootie (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Obviously notable. No response to my comment needed. Gage (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE for more information on why this is unsuitable for deletion discussions. Many thanks, Gazi moff 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need. Gage (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggeted that the articles be kept until a guideline is established on how to deal with these articles but the debate should happen in between seasons. Deleting them now would only inflame the situation and we'll have to deal wuth crazy fans annoyed that their favorite got deleted (Note: See User:Fritzpoll). For now the articles should stay. Please bear with that.--23prootie (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, thereby passing WP:BIO. Aspects (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note at the bottom of WP:MUSICBIO, I'd argue that the sbject isn't notable outside of the contest they're taking part in, and that a redirect may be appropriate. Gazi moff 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. per Fritzpoll's advice at Articles for deletion/Kris Allen, there should be a general pause before going ahead with these. I don;t think the community has consensus. Myself, i'd have said to delete. DGG (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Gokey (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Since other finalists are being deleted, let's review. --Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 16:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is as a result of the delete close at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexis_Grace_(2nd_nomination). Personally, I think a redirect would be a far better outcome of this process. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But still, what is the argument for deletion for this article, not a different article. It is Danny Gokey that is being discussed, not Alexis Grace. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to American Idol (season 8). Whilst the nomination appears a little pointed, I think these should be discussed on the same grounds as the participants at Alexis Grace mentioned. A lack of notability beyond the single event (per WP:BLP1E) of being in American Idol. WikiProject precedents or standards are irrelevant in comparison to our own policies - we already have an article covering the event, so individual articles can be merged there if there is any additional material, in which case a redirect should take place. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without having too much knowledge of the article... "If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate." could probably be applied here, as I understand it American Idol is a rather large event over there, and the contestants have a rather large role within it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seriously wish these had been nommed all together - save our copy-pasting! :) I don't think the event is significant - I interpret that to refer to something more important than a TV show. Say the assassin in a presidential assassin - you would expect an article on them, because it was a significant event - a TV show is unlikely to be significant in the same way. Your mileage may, of course, vary Fritzpoll (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the grand scheme of things, this TV show is a very significant TV show, not just to television, but to the music industry too. I agree that what I quoted is open to interpretation, but looking at things relatively, it seems to apply. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But the section you quoted clearly refers to historical significance. In full, it reads: If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented historic events, for example John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The historic significance of events should be indicated by the persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. Transient press coverage of a story does not generally indicate an individual who would meet this exception, even if there are multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. - there is no evidence of persistent coverage of these individuals, so they don't get articles...yet! If any of them get to number 1, or anything like that, then the articles should be recreated. But they aren't notable just for being in the TV show, which is essentially a temporary event, meaning that all coverage of them is transient until they do something else. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I read the last bit of that section as giving an example of the application of the guideline, rather than saying it only applies to historical significance. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm pretty certain it's to do with historical significance, because it meshes with WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SBST in terms of Wikipedia's desire to only record individuals who have historical significance. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect, for now - Unlike some of the others like Allison and Jasmine, he has nothing else outside of Idol to warrant the article. However, it will almost certainly be required at some point and certainly post-Idol unless he does nothing. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, with prejudice against renomination and forum-shopping at DRV. This was closed as a clear keep before, there are plenty of reliable sources, and yet there are those who don't like it, so they DRV it, and try to slip a renom by. This is incredibly annoying to those of us who periodically check in, and try to maintain these type of articles. There is no harm to the project by maintaining AI finalist articles, and there's no problem with notablitity either. Please stop with these POINT-y nominations. H₂O Shipper 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were snow kept, and Alexis Grace went to DRV on a procedural point of whether the arguments (common to all of these debates) based on WikiProject guidelines, was valid. The result was to relist Alexis Grace, which ultimately closed as delete. A renomination under such circumstances is not unreasonable. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant American Idol season. He's done nothing else, so there's no good reason to maintain a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was just started by a stupid Lambert fan because they hate Danny. So far on every season contestants have had a page for them WHILE ON THE SHOW. So we have to keep it. I'll put Lambert up for deletion if Danny is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.199.96 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we have ample precedent here (and precedent does matter. We're not in a vacuum here). But no matter what, let's establish something so we don't keep going through this. Because this could get real tedious real fast. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 01:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not yet eliminated, notability is not yet definitive.--23prootie (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis again? What is wrong with keeping this article, andf why were the other articles deleted? There was over 90% consensus to keep all of these articles last time. Bringing it up again is just shameful--Jojhutton (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the Alexis Grace bull is any precedent, I think our fearless leaders should probably delete this one too. No one knew who Gokey was before AI, so he's not notable, reliable sources be damned. Right, Fritzpoll? How long before you close this one on the "strength of the arguments" notion? H₂O Shipper 11:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Woohookitty, 23prootie and Jojhutton. Still active and still performing in the stage. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. BLP1E. Not notable for anything besides appearing on this TV show. ₳dam Zel 19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC) And I want to add that some of the keep "arguments" are ridiculous. Notability "not yet definitive" is not a reason to retain an article. We don't keep "biographies" in anticipation of someone maybe becoming notable. And what is 90% consensus? That doesn't even make sense. OTHERSTUFF is also a poor reason to keep. The Idol project should have never made it a standard to have non-notable "biographies" lacking any significant biographical info on the top 12 contestants. Also, people need to be commenting on the content, not the contributor. Fritzpoll is being incessantly hounded to the point that is coming up on harassment. Comment on content, not the contributors; on policies, not those enforcing them. ₳dam Zel 19:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, cool! Now they're setting it up so that those who question terrible closes can be blocked for harrassment! Yippee! H₂O Shipper 03:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's done is done, the articles are already here. Let's not focus on the past but instead focus on the future. If you disagree with the rules, like User:Fritzpoll says, change it. Go the respective Wikiproject and make your suggestion there, before the season starts, don't go attacking individual contestants pages and expect a fallout. That way way we could avoid messy discussions like this.--23prootie (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the keep arguments above are basically stating past precedent, which doesn't override WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Unless he does something else notable in the future that changes his notability, no one will remember nor care about him next season. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes multiple criteria in WP:Music, most importantly #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." American Idol is one of the biggest music competitions.

Almost no one is saying he shouldn't be covered at all. I'm just countering the idea that they should all have separate articles, when they can easily be covered in the article about American Idol and avoid being nominated for deletion altogether. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your point, after all Allison Iraheta was not yet famous three years ago even though she won a reality show. But what I'm worried about is what happens next if this gets deleted. Remember that this was triggered only when Alexis Grace's article get deleted as some sort of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth thing. If this gets deleted then who knows who's next. I have a feeling that these discussions will be used in the future to delete every other contestant of American Idol up to the point of Kelly Clarkson ether by a crazy fan as payback or a hater of the show. So rather than waste our time by creating a HUGE MESS, I suggest that this article be kept, along with the other contestants this season until perhaps when the season is over.--23prootie (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, thereby passing WP:BIO. Aspects (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note at the bottom of WP:MUSICBIO, I'd argue that the sbject isn't notable outside of the contest they're taking part in, and that a redirect may be appropriate. Gazi moff 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting the inclusion requirements of WP:MUSICBIO no matter how his work is perceived. Unless the guideline itself is greatly modified in the next few days, he passes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect just as Alexis Grace was done. Other finalists should be nominated too. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, per several editors above. He may also be notable as having toured, but I don't see any cites (yet) that verify that. No all "American Idols" are notable, but some are, on a case-by-case basis. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC) F.Y.I., that would be criteria # 4: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Bearian (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Ths Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Allen pretty much moots this discussion as well as the deletion of every other articles related to this season's American Idol such as the article of Alexis Grace. Please don't go on and disruptively delete every other contestant's article, I think you could get blocked for that.--23prootie (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BEFORE, we should discuss redirect/merge on the articles' pages; not AFD. Neier (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Murray[edit]

Since other finalists are being deleted, let's discuss everyone. --Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 16:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable. Cinemaniac86 seems to have gone on a nominating spree. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is as a result of the delete close at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexis_Grace_(2nd_nomination). Personally, I think a redirect would be a far better outcome of this process. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But still, what is the argument for deletion for this article, not a different article. It is Jasmine Murray that is being discussed, not Alexis Grace. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to American Idol (season 8). Whilst the nomination appears a little pointed, I think these should be discussed on the same grounds as the participants at Alexis Grace mentioned. A lack of notability beyond the single event (per WP:BLP1E) of being in American Idol. WikiProject precedents or standards are irrelevant in comparison to our own policies - we already have an article covering the event, so individual articles can be merged there if there is any additional material, in which case a redirect should take place. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without having too much knowledge of the article... "If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate." could probably be applied here, as I understand it American Idol is a rather large event over there, and the contestants have a rather large role within it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seriously wish these had been nommed all together - save our copy-pasting! :) I don't think the event is significant - I interpret that to refer to something more important than a TV show. Say the assassin in a presidential assassin - you would expect an article on them, because it was a significant event - a TV show is unlikely to be significant in the same way. Your mileage may, of course, vary Fritzpoll (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the grand scheme of things, this TV show is a very significant TV show, not just to television, but to the music industry too. I agree that what I quoted is open to interpretation, but looking at things relatively, it seems to apply. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But the section you quoted clearly refers to historical significance. In full, it reads: If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented historic events, for example John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The historic significance of events should be indicated by the persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. Transient press coverage of a story does not generally indicate an individual who would meet this exception, even if there are multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. - there is no evidence of persistent coverage of these individuals, so they don't get articles...yet! If any of them get to number 1, or anything like that, then the articles should be recreated. But they aren't notable just for being in the TV show, which is essentially a temporary event, meaning that all coverage of them is transient until they do something else. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I read the last bit of that section as giving an example of the application of the guideline, rather than saying it only applies to historical significance. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I'm pretty certain it's to do with historical significance, because it meshes with WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SBST in terms of Wikipedia's desire to only record individuals who have historical significance. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to series article. Per WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for one event. If the subject becomes notable outside of this event, they may warrant an article. In addition, I'm concerned about the article's poor level of sourcing per WP:BIO - for a biography of a living person the required standard of sourcing is set quite high. This content would be much more suitable in the series article already mentioned. In addition, this article fails WP:RS as it has no reliable, secondary sources indepenent of the subject. Gazi moff 17:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment - Unlike some others, she HAS pre-Idol notability as well in her pageantry. Some pageant contestants have articles even without additional events. Even if she was cut in the semi-finals, I would say keep for her. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's not notable for just American Idol, she also competed in Miss America's Outstanding Teen. (If it is redirected, I don't see any need to delete the article history. Just protect the redirect if it's recreated without consensus) - Mgm|^(talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per CrazyC83 and Mgm. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Idol contestant, needs full articles like the rest of Idol's finalists. Pageant info, Idol info, and soon Post-idol status. Candyo32 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Idol finalists get own articles. This is nonsense.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't represent a reason why the article meets the wider policies for inclusion. Please see WP:ILIKEIT. Gazi moff 07:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -beauty queen.--23prootie (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per CrazyC83, MacGyverMagic and 23prootie. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the keep arguments above are basically stating past precedent, which doesn't override WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Unless she does something else notable in the future that changes her notability, no one will remember nor care about her next season. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In her case, it is not a one-event notability. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes multiple criteria in WP:Music, most importantly #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." American Idol is one of the biggest music competitions.
Strong Keep - Explained my stance on the deletion of these articles numerous times before. Gage (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I examined your previous contribs, and cannot find information on any previous AfDs before these. Could you indicate where I might be able to find this previous stance? Many thanks Gazi moff 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggeted that the articles be kept until a guideline is established on how to deal with these articles but the debate should happen in between seasons. Deleting them now would only inflame the situation and we'll have to deal wuth crazy fans annoyed that their favorite got deleted (Note: See User:Fritzpoll). For now the articles should stay. Please bear with that.--23prootie (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slam-dunk Keep Notability established via her status as one of the top 13 finalists on this season's American Idol, as well as her previous competitions. --74.95.135.46 (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes they are notable. Look at how much coverage they get when eliminated. And we never know what will happen later. Chris Sligh has written a hit for Rascal Flatts 2 years after being on the show. Actually almost 3. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Point nomination, article passes criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, thereby passing WP:BIO. Aspects (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note at the bottom of WP:MUSICBIO, I'd argue that the sbject isn't notable outside of the contest they're taking part in, and that a redirect may be appropriate. Gazi moff 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. WP:BLP1E concerns are more significantt than those in this discussion arguing for maintaining the status quo on the basis of the existence of similar material or having personal knowledge of the notability. Deletion appears to be regarded as an excessively blunt instrument here. A redirect should allow a merge to take place from the history Fritzpoll (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Ya[edit]

This person is notable only for one event, as covered in the WP:BLP1E policy section. Most of the sources seem to use her as an example of internet vigilantism, not as a primary subject. Chick Bowen 16:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to internet vigilantism. WP:BLP1E says that we should cover the event not the person in cases like this. Your reasoning explains why this person possibly shouldn't have their own article, but it doesn't give a good reason to delete it completely. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is not explicitly supported by policy--it is that this person's name would still be the redirect point and the location for the history. I also think the amount of information currently at internet vigilantism is sufficient and the level of detail provided in this article is unnecessary per WP:Undue weight. If it is merged I think the best thing would be to move the history to a different title (such as Sichuan earthquake response controversy, or whatever), and merge only a small amount of the information. Chick Bowen 00:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This "person's name" is all over the Internet, well known on every single Chinese forum and website. It is false to say that due to controversy, the identity is concealed; as the person's name is commonly found, it would be useless as to censor this here. It might even be of equivalence to names like Bill Gates and Tony Mokbel in regards to how well people know of the personality. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 11:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why delete? This is a significant event in the Internet Culture in China, ask any Chinese netizen about it and they will know detail after detail of this incident. There was a similar article on Dog poop girl, which deals with a similar incident of vigilantism. The article is well sourced, well known of in China, and is indeed significant. Any deletion due to "uhh, never heard of this" is simply ignorance. The article is detailed and written by facts, as Mencius once said, "Why burn the house which is crafted with dedication?" Regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 11:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article you mentioned was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (4th nomination). It is currently being considered at WP:Deletion review. Chick Bowen 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet vigilantism. ₳dam Zel 18:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is very infamous in China. I am from Sichuan and they don't like her, I know.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = From WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Simple human decency suggests that this article needs to be removed. This person is "famous" for one event, and will never be heard from again. The article is full of defamations of her character from the people who replied to her on YouTube. For the love of God, delete this article out of human decency. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider WP:NOTCENSORED. Regarding these defamations, they are well known, it is not like only two people know of them. The article doesn't say (for example) "Person A is a ...", but rather "Some have written that person A is a ...". Consider this - if "Joe Bloggs" was a famous investment banker, albeit a contraversial one, it is possible for there to be an article section on "public opinion" with sourced quotes? However, if you are that against the usage of examples of profanity, then by all means remove them. Don't sink the whole ship. Also please consider WP:CHANCE and WP:DEMOLISH. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 08:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- QUOTE: "Simple human decency" - please explain. Looks to me like a Ignoratio elenchi (Irrelevant conclusion) fallacy. Also consider Wisdom of repugnance and Appeal to pity. The correlation of profaneness does not imply "indecency", see Correlation does not imply causation. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 10:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am suggesting that keeping this article about a normal person who is involved in one single event and will never be heard from again is actively harmful to a living human being, which is against our BLP policies. If you choose to read that as a logical fallacy, then that says more about your argument than about my argument, I'm sorry to say. Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not proscriptive, which means that if we start being sensible and actually deleting BPL1E biographies, then this will become the policy. Doing anything other than this harms real people, which turns Wikipedia from an encyclopedia into a forum for defamation. Your statement about WP:NOTCENSORED is a non sequitur, because I'm not saying the article is offensive, I'm saying it harms a real person. Your second statement, the one full of wiki-links, is such a complete misreading of what I said that I don't see a reason to bother arguing against it. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that benlisquare's comment was aimed at your use of the phrase "simple human decency"—a concept which is inherently subjective, whose meaning varies from person to person and across time and cultures, and use of which constitutes an appeal to emotion. That being said, I happen to agree with your position regarding this article (i.e. that the subject of the article is a private person known only in connection for a single event and herself not notable (WP:BIO1E) and that continued, detailed coverage is harmful to the subject). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article focuses more on the incident rather than being a biographical article. It is not entirely on the person. If you must, rename it to something similar to Internet controversy regarding the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake media publicity or something. Even if it is an inconsiderable biography, it can be considered as a significant Internet phenomena. Otherwise, you should also destroy Leeroy Jenkins, David Motari, Matt Harding, Cory Kennedy and Shakeel Bhat who are all insignificant internet "one-timers". Think about it, there are meaningless articles on Mudkips on Wikipedia, and they are permitted to exist? I am strongly against the deletion of Zhang Ya and until much more pointless articles are deletion prior, I will not succomb to allowing Zhang Ya to be deleted. However, I strongly believe that you are merely deleting this article due to your assumption that this event is insignificant when it is indeed not; this is an Argument from ignorance due to your own ideas and motivations. I do not know how much I need to stress how significant this event was politically (there have been reports from Government media regarding this), socially (regarding nationalism and public shaming) and in context with Internet in China. Simply stating that this article falls into the category of "articles that should be deleted" is a simple Association fallacy if one does not consider other options. An Argumentum ad populum would also be logically false in this predicament as many would only simply state that the article is "insignificant" simply because they have never heard of it (as most who have live on the other side of the world, where Wikipedia is blocked). I wouldn't be surprised if there were a larger majority voting for deletion; most of those who would have believed otherwise are unable to reach Wikipedia, due to government censorship. Would this also be an Appeal to authority over those who are able to make a decision? Again, if the biographical content does not suit your "requirements", then by all means allow it to be renamed and rewritten so that it does. Kindest regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 09:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite: - how's this for a draft:

The contraversy regarding Internet hate speech regarding the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake is an online incident which occurred after the earthquake in 2008, where numerous brigades of nationalistic Chinese netizens attacked and publicly shamed a girl, known as "Liaoning Nǚ" (Chinese: 辽宁女, literally "Liaoning Girl"), over the Internet, after she had made claims regarding the media coverage of the earthquake which had caused anger among Chinese internet users. The incident was widely reported on Chinese websites, forums and even mainstream media.

Any suggestions? Kindest regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 11:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Internet vigilantism per WP:BLP1E. "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event," which is definitely the case here, "then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual ... and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy." If there is no consensus to merge, then move the article from its current title (to Liaoning Nǚ) since it is primarily not about Zhang Ya the person, but rather about about her video post and the reaction to it. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No more reason to keep this than dog poop girl or YouTube cat abuse incident. -- samj _in ^out 16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, BLP violation.--Caspian blue 06:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingAtheist[edit]

A biography of a YouTuber with pretty basic WP:BLP1E and WP:SBST issues. A guy of no other particular note made a YouTube video, in which he accurately guessed one of the people later involved in the Jokela school shooting. This coincidence was a story for about three days. (References 4-18 in the article span from Nov. 9, 2007 to the 11th, save for one on the 16th.) There's nothing else to say about this person, except that he was interviewed on a blog one time and has a YouTube channel (linked no less than six times in this article). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authors Keep, coverage was widespread in multiple languages in at least 15 articles of which I can find, also satisfies #2 of WP:ENTERTAINER.--Otterathome (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor part of a story that made international headlines in Europe, so, yeah, the coverage is going to be multiple languages. It's Europe.
As for WP:ENTERTAINER, I'm not seeing the source that says he has a cult following. Which source is that, or am I looking at the wrong point? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50k subscribers is a large fan base. Ref 4 also says he is prolific.--Otterathome (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I'll use WP:ATA even though I hate it. Arbitrary numbers aren't much of a claim of notability when no reliable source has ever taken note of them, and the Wired article only mentions TAA as part of the one story that was the subject of a short burst of stories. This is an attempt to make a biography out of a news event that doesn't really rise to the notability standard for news stories. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't speak a word of Finnish, but something tells me that some of these links are duplicates of a press wire. "YouTube-käyttäjä varoitti netissä Pekka-Eric Auvisen aikeista jo kesäkuussa, kirjoittaa amerikkalainen aikakauslehti Wired" is the lead of this, this, this, and this. I need to take a closer look at the German sources since I do know a bit; Der Spiegel is certainly good but intern.de smells like a scraper. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, but rewrite and/or move to better subject~~ It's a topic that has coverage. The sources aren't unreliable from what I can see at a glance. This page just needs to be cleaned and repaired. I can't think of a policy, or even guideline, that would qualitfy deletion. Tealwisp (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I linked two in the first sentence of my deletion rationale. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to jokela school shooting Thinking about where one might move this to, I think the information is best put under the school shooting's page. Tealwisp (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:SBST or merge with Jokela school shooting and/or Internet vigilantism (unless there's somewhere better?) -- samj _in ^out 16:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above user is vote spamming.--Otterathome (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. A nonnotable youtube "celebrity". Ugh. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Caspian blue 06:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, clearly Tone 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSSCorner[edit]

Unremarkable website, bordering on blatant advertisement. The original article contained a link to the website, and was flagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertisement. With the removal of the link to the site, the advertising isn't as blatant, but now the article seems to fall afoul of WP:CSD#a1. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - non notable website. 16x9 (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete: copyright violation, advertising and questionable notability.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Lambert[edit]

Delete nn artist fails WP:CREATIVE Mayalld (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was in the process of deleting as G11 - Blatant Advertisement, when the AfD notice was posted and I mistakenly accepted the deletion reason as this AfD (obviously too new). I don't see the need for AfD as it is clearly advertisement to me. I see no indication of notability either. Now we have an AfD, so let it run its course. Cheers. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sent to AfD because its already been recreated once. Mayalld (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually, just spotted its a copyvio! Mayalld (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Recreation of a deleted article has never stopped me from nominating for speedy again. In my experience an article that's speedy deleted 3 times gets WP:SALT but I'm not sure if that's a rule/policy or not (most give up after 2 speedy deletions). Anyways, speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12, G11, etc. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yozzasport[edit]

Non-notable retailer, only source is the founder. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any online articles that link to us. We have magazine articles that refer to us - can I use them as references? y0z2a (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One would think this would recieve more than one hit on google news. Also note the clear conflict of interest with the creator. Themfromspace (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline G11 with no apparent notability. Mayalld (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources with which to establish notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, about to block creator anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , nearly speedyable as non-notable/blatant advertisement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to back up verifiability. Matt (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Please be aware that the page creator has been blocked and may come in with sources late in the discussion that could change peoples' opinions. I hope the closing admin will consider starting a fresh discussion if this happens and if in their opinion, the sources presented could change peoples' minds. Mango juice^talk 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bread of Life Ministries International[edit]

Reason Brownpipol (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Blatant advertising - the tone of the article is very similar to the marketing material of the church. See History, Prayer Activities and Other Ministries.

The article references 2 websites directly affiliated with the church. Most of the content and external links are directly derived from the these websites, making wikipedia as an extension of its marketing propaganda http://www.breadoflifeministriesinternational.org/aboutus.html and http://crossroad77.com/index.html

Also, the author (Peridan) has been systematically removing any negative publicity from the church. E.g. Church split and Senior Pastor disciplined in 1996. And the church published an article in the newspapers that turned out to be a hoax in 2004. Ref: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2004/11/14/oped/nini.b..cabaero.html

2) Use of copyrighted material. The History section is directly derived from http://www.breadoflifeministriesinternational.org/aboutus.html (with some sentences paraphrased). Previously, Peridan uploaded the logo of the church, which was deleted due to copyright violations.

3) Also this seems to be a Recreation of deleted material. This article was deleted twice before.

As a side note, Crossroad77 seems to be a private entity and Bread of Life as the non-for-profit counterpart.

Delete per above. Sure looks like spam to me. And please note that I am PeridON not PeridAN who is the creator of the article. Peridon (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a major organization. If there's spam or cv, deal with the content directly. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seem to be plenty of reliable sources with significant coverage to establish notability. ([23]) The sources do need to be sifted through because apparently there are other organizations with the same name. The article does need copyediting, checking for WP:NPOV, and inline citations. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per LinguistAtLarge. Edward321 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LinguistAtLarge's Google search confirms notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold as Ice (song)[edit]

The artist is barely notable, and this article for one of his unreleased songs is even less so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Professor (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the very least, a rename is in order, since I think Cold as Ice (Foreigner song) is a much more likely candidate for this name. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Bizarre. One would have thought a charting song like the Foreigner one would be the main name article.. JamesBurns (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable song by a non-notable artist. If deleted move Cold as Ice (Foreigner song) to Cold as Ice (song) namespace. JamesBurns (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move per above. The Foreigner song of the same title is clearly notable, whereas this one doesn't seem to be. JulesH (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move Cold as Ice (Foreigner song) to this article place, as that is a very well known song. No opinion on what to do with this article, but if it's kept it should be moved to Cold as Ice (Nathan song). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Move Cold as Ice (Foreigner song) to Cold as Ice (song). As for this song, the only support for its notability is that the video received some airplay. Unless there is more to it, I don't think that is enough to warrant an article, and thus delete. Rlendog (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSONGS. Didn't chart, little or no coverage of substance. TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Wiggles _oinks ^waddles 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Net cutter[edit]

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Only links to a single article. Dab pages that differ between two meanings should be made into hatnotes, pages themselves should differ between at least three meanings with articles. This dab lists only one page with an article and is thus useless. -Geronimo20 (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All 3 meanings are noteworthy. Ask any scuba diver about importance of (2) as a safety device. Ask a naval man about (3) in undersea warfare. {{hangon}}. This page was under construction when someone AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Dab pages are not just to give definitions, they are supposed to link to articles. If for example the line about the scuba diver tool links to the relevant section in a scuba diver equipment article or an entirely fresh article about the tool, this could easily satisfy the requirements Geronimo sets and be kept at the same time. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now that Mgm's comment has been followed (i.e. 2, 3 and 4 go to either an article about it or part of an article with the pertinent information), it seems a legit search term. Also, with more than two items, hatnotes wouldn't suffice. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after the change. Perhaps the nominator could withdraw the nom, since the article is now significantly different from the nominated versione. Since there is not much else to discuss, this afd could be then closed early. Tizio 15:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This now disambiguates between multiple (3+) articles or article sections that could potentially have their own articles. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after disambig. Themfromspace (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw – now that these concerns have been addressed, I withdraw my nomination --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Math 55[edit]

Articles about individual university courses are usually deemed non-notable. Does this ones claim to be the hardest make it notable? Sgroupace (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary sources exist (I've added four) demonstrating WP:N, the hardest course at the most prestigious American university counts for something, and WP:NOT#PAPER. THF (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual course at a single school. Wikipedia is not a brochure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a version of disfavored argument WP:INHERITED, arguing that a course can never be notable. Notability, however, is an objective, not a subjective, standard, and the fact remains that the course has been noted, and not just by the campus newspaper. THF (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Except for coverage from the Harvard Crimson (a student newspaper), there's little there that constitutes non-trivial coverage. The outside sources only give it a mention in the context of particular discussion topics. Thus, I conclude this fails WP:N. Ray^Talk 16:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Being widely reputed to be the hardest undergrad math course in the US would give it notability, but the source of the claim comes from the Harvard Crimson, hardly a neutral third-party source. I think this is more like a college rumor, as none of the sources discussing it on google are both independant and reliable, which is what's needed to ascertain notability. Themfromspace (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: "legendary among math prodigies" in The American. Also called "legendary" in the Richard Stallman biography. I've found four separate biographies in articles or books where "Math 55" is the only course mentioned; there may or may not be others. THF (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It probably is the hardest class at Harvard, but most major universities have weedout courses that are "legendary" only among people who contemplated a particular major at that school. Harvard grads being better than the average at being noticed, and promoting their background, this may have slipped over the bar. But what I see so far is mostly the memories of Harvard undergrads, and a few incidental mentions for promotional value in other articles. I'd really want to see more than we have here. Ray^Talk 18:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some folks, including those at a Harvard paper think this is the hardest undergrad course in the country? Have they taken honors calculus at all the other leading colleges? Edison (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it was even provable that it was the hardest in the country, it should still only get a line on the main article --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, covered in several independent sources. --Kjetil r (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is also the topic of several popular forum discussions: [[24]] [[25]] Acceptable (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But forums aren't reliable sources...Themfromspace (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is still a topic of discussion for many students. Prominent figures such as Bill Gates also gave mention to the course. Acceptable (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is gossip, but that doesn't get a Wikipedia article. 129.105.19.151 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to echo Ray's earlier comment and reiterate that every university has some "notorious" weedout class or hardass professor that gains some currency within the local culture (MIT's being any of 8.03, 6.003, or a variety of others), but whose notability doesn't extend beyond the confines of campus. To the extent that the class was referenced in self-congratulatory biopics of notable people or has received obligatory fawning coverage in the local student newspaper (although the Harvard Crimson is certainly no slouch in other realms), neither are reliable proxies for measuring notability. Read through the lens of the article hypothetically being spun out from the Harvard College article itself, I still would recommend deleting the passage there as there is no appropriate place to put it in any article or as a stand-alone article itself. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep given the verifiable and reliable sources provided. Some of them are a bit of a stretch as they don't mention the subject at all but even removing them leaves several good references that are clearly applicable. Merging to an appropriate article would also be acceptable to me. I also take issue with many of the arguments presented above for deletion as they don't seem to be based in any policy or guideline but merely assertions of opinion (a fancy way of saying "I don't like it"). --ElKevbo (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'Some of them are a bit of a stretch as they don't mention the subject at all' and others are a college newspaper. 'Merging to an appropriate article would also be acceptable to me.' It probably could warrant a mention in the Harvard article {Students at Harvard think Math 55 is the hardest class ever}. 'merely assertions of opinion (a fancy way of saying "I don't like it")' I think most people are saying 'I don't like it because it uses bad sourcing, basing most info on a biased college newspaper, including the statement of notability' which I guess does shorten down to 'I don't like it', but they do tend to cite guidelines that the article does not follow to back up their statements that the article kind of sucks. 129.105.19.151 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep echoing the comments of my fellow Wikipedians above, but secondary sources are found on this article, and there's nothing against it being a stub- I don't see the need for it to be deleted. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete heavily biased name unelucidating name. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if such a course were to have an article, it certainly wouldn't be named thusly. Perhaps Harvard University's Math 55: Honors Advanced Calculus and Linear Algebra 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets all notability requirements. I see plenty of legitimate third party media sources listed there. Dream Focus 11:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Which sources are both reliable and independant? That's required by the notability guidelines Themfromspace (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete this doesn't even look like a degree programme but a mere module. An individual course simply isn't notable. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's one course, clearly non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would the fact it's only one course make it non-notable? I could understand other arguments, but that's pretty tenuous.Ks64q2 (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability pretty clearly spelled out, verifiable too. -- Banjeboi 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's 'pretty clearly spelled out' and neither do several other people. Would you mind enlightening us? 129.105.19.151 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Here's a few dozen online searchable books that confirm the course is notable enough to be written about, the rest is clean-up. -- Banjeboi 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does that really establish notability, a search result like that? Because if you actually read the results, only one of them is actually talking about the course. A good thing is that it's the most info I've seen on what the course actually covers {example of diff geometry of Banach manifolds is given}, but that makes me more wary about the 'four years of math in 1 year' claim. I would say it's only four years of material if you start from scratch in math somewhere else, but my friend started college as an English major, then switched to math and got to this level in three years, and I imagine most other math majors get there in two or less. But that has nothing to do with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.250.206 (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think so. I will freely admit I didn't pour through each of the 38 books on this search but the gaol of the AfD is to ascertain if concerns can be addressed and this seems to confirm that they can. -- Banjeboi 06:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced. Quality seems to be good. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is a college newspaper really a good source to be using? I think not. "Classes frequently consist of former members of the International Mathematical Olympiad" Those IMO members are more likely to get into say, Harvard, MIT, etc, and this is the freshman math course, so obviously those people are going to be in this class. That's like saying that 'Top students in the country are in the freshman math class at Top University'. Not notable. "homework problem sets can take up to sixty hours to complete per week." Probably exaggeration for one, and also, why does this fact mean anything? Should the class with the longest problem set in the country get an article because of that? No. "Prominent Math 55 students include Bill Gates,[3] Richard Stallman,[4] and Brad DeLong.[5]" Same thing as saying, these famous smart people took math classes at Harvard. Adds nothing. "Gates said the experience of taking a class "where everybody had an 800 on their SAT and 5 on their AP" taught him that there were people smarter than him." Bet he would say the same thing of most other top college's intro-higher-level-math classes. No. "John Bates Clark Medal-winning economist Andrei Shleifer has said that the course made him realize he was not destined to be a mathematician." Same thing I said about Gates applies here. "As of 2006, only seventeen women have graduated from the course." I bet I could say the same thing about many other math classes. "Gender disparity controversy" That whole section just seems to be talking about general 'girls can't do math' stuff, and providing examples of when it happened in this class. You could do the same thing about many other similar classes. Overall, this article could be summed as 'People who went to Harvard think this class is hard. People who go to Harvard are smart. This class must be really hard.' For the life of me I can't see how this is notable. 129.105.19.151 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition Mark it a stub. There's definitely not enough to warrant an article, and people are opposed to deleting it, so make it a stub. From my understanding, that greatly reduces the requirements it has to meet. 75.31.250.206 (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it is true that Harvard freshmen most likely have not taken classes at other top universities (maybe except MIT), no other freshmen math course at other universities compresses 4 years of undergraduate mathematics into one year. Graduates of this course can immediately pursue graduate-level mathematics studies; which other math course in the United States allows for this? Acceptable (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'no other freshmen math course at other universities compresses 4 years of undergraduate mathematics into one year' Is that what this course is? Because the article doesn't mention that at all. The article says it's an Advanced Calculus and Linear Algebra course. That doesn't sound like a whole lot like '4 years of undergraduate mathematics into one year'. It sounds more like 'standard first year advanced math class'. Being a math major myself, I find some of these implications a little unclear. And there's the fact that this is not mentioned at all in the article. If this is such a big reason for why this is notable, why is it not mentioned? 75.31.250.206 (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MIT students visit Harvard to take this class. Perhaps Caltech or Stanford or Princeton has something equivalent, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. There wouldn't be another American school with the critical mass to offer this course. THF (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'There wouldn't be another American school with the critical mass to offer this course.' Care to elaborate? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. 75.31.250.206 (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to point things out. If you exclude the School Newspaper sources (questionable due to WP:GNG-"Independent of the subject"), there are 5 sources.

1 - "Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man? provides info for the 'Gender disparity controversy' section and mentions the course, referencing the course catelog and the college newspaper and presenting it in a sort of heresay-y way. It is the source for this sentence: 'Classes frequently consist of former members of the International Mathematical Olympiad and homework problem sets can take up to sixty hours to complete per week.' However, the article only says: 'It is legendary among high school math prodigies, who hear terrifying stories about it in their computer camps and at the Math Olympiads. Some go to Harvard just to have the opportunity to enroll in it.' which is not quite the same thing, although I don't really have a problem with that.

2 - Gates: how Microsoft's mogul reinvented an industry--and made himself the richest man in America. - Appears to just establish that Gates took the class.

3 - Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software. - Same thing but with Stallman.

4 - 10 Questions For Bill Gates". Time. - Source of quotation where Gates says this is where he discovered that there are smarter people than him. I don't think this does much to establish 'hardest undergraduate course.

5 - No Break in the Storm Over Harvard President's Words - More info for the 'Gender disparity controversy' section, and mentions that Maud Levin took the class.

Hopefully this sums up a fair amount of what people have been saying about these sources. In short, they don't appear to establish the notability that other people claim they do. 75.31.250.206 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above other sources exist that seem to confirm this very short article. Ideally these would be integrated into the article so that our readers can see the verification as well, but this, in and of itself is a reason for clean-up, not deletion. -- Banjeboi 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fantastically interesting, satisfactorily sourced. --Skandha101 06:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandha101 (talk • contribs)

Comment Those who are arguing about the claim (yes, "reputed," not stated as fact) that this is a super-duper-hard class, or the hardest class in the universe, are missing the point. This has no bearing on notability. (It is of course possible to make any course arbitrarily 'hard,' and this is exactly not the point.) This is notable because of the institution, the importance of the subject to modern society's productions (quants who can crash stock markets, for instance), and the people involved. It happens to be a course at Harvard which has had a documented impact on people who (fair or not!) are themselves prima facie notable. --Skandha101 07:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology[edit]

I am not seeing sources dealing specifically with this book, nor is it written in an encyclopedic tone. MBisanz ^talk 09:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep = The tone is pretty bad, but it meets criterion 4 for the notability of books (being used for instruction at multiple universities). Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a quote from a reliably-published secondary source (an academic journal article by Bettina Arnold) indicating the significance of this book. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It seems to meet WP:BK #4 as a google search shows http://www.google.com/search?q=Frauds%2C+Myths%2C+and+Mysteries%3A+Science+and+Pseudoscience+in+Archaeology+site%3A.edu&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with respects to the nom whom I greatly respect, being required reading at college and univeristies meets the inclusion requirements. Any concerns with article format should be addressed by WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.--Sloane (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian TV Newsreaders[edit]

There are already categories that cover this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, also duplicates the existing category Australian television newsreaders and news presenters. WWGB (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:LISTCRUFT WP:NOTDIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN which specifically says lists and categories can coexist. The nominator's reasoning is faulty because the list says what channel and program the reader works for which is something a category cannot duplicate. Categories only make alphabetical lists of items and this is clearly more. (Also, this isn't a directory, directories are lists of things that otherwise wouldn't have articles or lists of barely connected items; neither applies to this) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CLN makes it very clear that just because a category exists does not mean a list shouldn't as well hence no valid delete ratrionalle was given. Additionally this list clearly provides extra information that a category can not so the category, in my opinion, does not 'already cover this' and the lists hould be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists like this are important and will become more important when people seek information for purposes of retribution. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What? You want wikipedia to be a tool for getting revenge on people? I've seen some crazy keep votes in my time but that takes the cake! JamesBurns (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well crafted list that complements the cat. See WP:CLN—G716 <^T·_C> 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN and the fact that this list contains plenty of information that is not available in the category. Also, the "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy "is not intended to encompass lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject," which is exactly what this is. DHowell (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicates existing category content. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are already categories that cover this. TheClashFan (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it organizes the information on one page, much more conveniently than the categories, and the extra information makes it more useful for browsing articles and/or seeking information for the purpose of retribution. Nerfari (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Flashdance. MBisanz ^talk 09:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full cast list of Flashdance[edit]

No need for this - that's what IMDb is for. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Merge primary actors only. I didn't see that the main article only had two listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Per the comments here: Talk:Flashdance#Cast_list there has apparently been editing warring at Flashdance#Cast over whether the cast was to long to be included on the main article for the film, so this one was created as a means of keeping the full cast list on wikipedia, but removing it from Flashdance, getting rid of it would be largely pointless and just spark further edit warring. Anyway I agree that the list should be seperate from the main article for the film, but that we should have it some where, and this list seems to be the best place. Unrelated comment to Clarityfiend: it's been a while! Remember this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skirmish_at_Telstar ? I changed my username from theterribletwins1111 since, but it's very nice to see you're still active here, cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hey, they'll have to pry the keyboard out of my cold, dead hands. I'm just concentrating on mainspace and the reference desks. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back in. At the very least the bit parts from the bottom part of the list can go. Only significant characters are covered in cast lists on film articles. List of Flashdance characters only works when the characters are discussed in reliable sources (again impossible for the bit parts). Not everything needs to be copied to Wikipedia. By linking to IMDB we are covering the information too. (Note: If these were tabelized and separated into three double-columns there'd be no specific space concerns). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge on further thought, I agree with what MacGyver says, there should be room for most of the list in Flashdance, edit warring will just have to be dealt with. Also I realise that the actions of creating the page was not a community consensus, rather the edits of one user Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merger would only add unnecessary administratia here. There's already a cast list section in the main article. Townlake (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a list. It's a mention of two lead characters. While there shouldn't be a full cast list, it does need expension with the significant roles and for that to happen we need a merge. I ran WikiBlame, but was unable to find evidence that the material to be merged was in the article during the past year (which would make merging unneccesary administratia as you say) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, its only necessary to merge the main characters back in. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (reluctantly). I created this article, since one user was determined to have a full cast list, even though it is too long for Flashdance in its current form. As a general rule, Wikipedia articles about films do not need full cast lists, as these can be found at IMDb. Rather than set off a new round of edit warring, it would be better to keep this article for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Avoiding an edit war is not a valid reason to keep an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy. Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. We maintain truncated cast lists in film and TV articles because they add context and informational value to explanations of movies and shows, but there's a limit to how much value the more obscure roles add. Townlake (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per N, NOT, MOSFILM, and splitting guidelines, with partial merge for the key roles/actors. Relevant and notable cast members should be mentioned in the film's article - this falls well within the merge size, and a good portion of the article consists of non-notable actors. We are not IMDb or similar databases, and having a full cast list for all but the most spartan of cast sizes is not in keeping with encyclopedic (ie summary) style. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't split in the past year. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last I looked, the Flashdance article had a cast list of two, with a link to the full cast list. Is that not a split? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general English that is a possible meaning of the phrase, but in Wikipedia terminology a split is when someone takes material from an article and puts it into a separate page. That didn't happen here. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but it essentially is a sub-article - whether or not it was a formal split, the results are as if it were split. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing it out because deletion would kill the edit history. If it's not a technical split, deletion would mean there is no way to attribute the list to the people who included it in Wikipedia to begin with which is crucial. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge primary actors back to Flashdance; dump the rest. This stand-alone article is not warranted because full cast lists are indiscriminate. There is zero precedent for such a list of every single role from the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the whole list to Flashdance; are we seriously worried that a list of 45 actors is going to overwhelm the main article? Put it in columns like Mgm says so it doesn't take so much space, or better yet follow the example of this featured article. Discuss on the talk page to achieve consensus about which, if any, roles should be excluded from the article. DHowell (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is something that should be merged. Quistisffviii (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Pokémon games[edit]

Reliable sources are especially needed for an article like this and, well, they're not there. Or, as far as I could tell, on Google. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Potential Keep This article could potentially be kept if it would be made more reliable, there are as it stands on Google 424,000 search results I'm sure whoever works on this could find plenty of reliable sources. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you try that search in quotes, you'll see it gets 6 google hits. And obviously, none of them are reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: If you take "list of" out of the quotes, you end up with just over 5000 hits, which might be a little more for the editors to work with if they were looking for reliable sources. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most Mods do not get any independent coverage, or any attention beyond the people who created or used them (and the latter is a very small group for any particular mod). I cannot see anything to make this an exception. The article lacks any references to back up claims that certain "fake versions" were famous or that their sale on eBay has been "massive". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete attempt to lump a variety of non-notable ROM hacks, pirate versions, mods, and the like into one article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really a topic; a mix of bootlegs, empty boxes, fan-games, and just random slurry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the user who originally prodded the article (see [26]). Nothing but original research, unverifiable speculation, and overall lack of verifiability. MuZemike 16:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources found. Versus22_talk 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pokemon Diamond and Jade might be notable, unlike the rest of the list which are all fan-made ROM hacks. Back when the series was at its peak of popularity, those two bootleg games came out and were widely released as "rare" Pokemon titles with their own cartridges, boxes and everything. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep as it may help someone --Thevilla2007 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.219.68 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2009[reply]
- That is not a reason for keeping the article. Please read the verifiability policy and avoiding original research. MuZemike 22:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for contributing and as the saying go "Rome wasn't built in a day" -John Heywood —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevilla2007 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fan-made hacks/mods, merge Diamond/Jade to Telefang. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (also in reply to Norse's above comment) Diamond/Jade could probably get its own article if notability can be established. MuZemike 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pokemon Jade registers 21,300 hits on Google (including quotes); whether any are reliable remains to be seen, but notability might be there if someone digs deep enough. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Unreferenced draft cannot address the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihanna's upcoming forth studio album and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourth Album (Rihanna album). --Tikiwont (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Angel (Rihanna album)[edit]

Fails WP:NM and WP:BALL, lack of reliable sources that verify this album's existence DiverseMentality 04:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know some of the top paragraph is a direct copy and paste from the 2007–2008: Good Girl Gone Bad section in the actual Rihanna article, if it is legitimate then it would need to be totally redone. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already deleted eleventy-kabillion times (OK, more like five) for the same old reasons of being completely crystal, unsourced, and apt for the Hammer rule. See previous nominations and deletion here and here. Nate • (chatter) 08:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For info, WP:HAMMER only applies if the article title is along the lines of "<insert act here>'s Xth studio album". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it applies to (since I've cited it since its creation), but the opening lede includes the infamous this is her nth studio album line, which is just as guilty to me as having it as the title. Nate • (chatter) 10:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD G4, now tagged as such. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - It violates WP:CRYSTAL and, due to being recreated several times, is a canditate for WP:CSD#G4. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I've declined the speedy per G4 as it only applies to previous deletion discussions. The G4 tag lead to this discussion here, the log for this name had no entry either and there is also no link here to a previous deletion discussion. If you have such information, please include it as argument in the {{db-repost}} tag. Otherwise please be careful in invoking G4. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Hastell[edit]

Not Notable Kristof15 (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only notability claims are that he is occasional podcast guest and published a now-defunct online newsletter "Podcast User Magazine". Kristof15 (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shayana D. Kadidal[edit]

Subject fails notability. The article also fails wp:bio and appears to be a coatrack for Guantanamo Bay. The claim of notability is that the subject represents clients at Guantanamo Bay, but this alone does not provide notability, as notability is not inherited. The writings listed are limited to items concerning the subject's clients. A proper course would be to list this individual as counsel in the client's page for each detainee. Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No third-party sources in article except for a blog, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by his associate-level work on a handful of cases, a number of which aren't remotely notable. The WP:PUFF in the article is unbelievable: a lawyer filed a status report? and a motion for joinder? Sign up 2000 litigators at Baker & McKenzie for Wikipedia articles. THF (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've agreed with the author of most of this category of articles, GeoSwan, to forego further AFD nominations in return for him reviewing these articles with a jaundiced eye and userfying the majority of them that do not meet BIO. Since that would resolve the problem with a minimum of other editors' time, I ask Yachtsman1 to also forego such additional nominations for 30 days or so, instead tagging with {{notability}} and {{primarysources}} tags. THF (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly satisfies Notability guideline for "significant" coverage, as interviewed or featured in more than a dozen international publications (NYT, Guardian, NPR, Al-Jazeera), writes columns for major publications, "senior managing attorney of the Guantánamo project" at the CCR. Guideline defines "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." He has received BOTH "Significant" AND "Exclusive" coverage from national and international press. According to his bio, reffed in the article :" In addition to supervising the Guantánamo litigation, he also works on the Center’s case against the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program, CCR v. Bush, and its challenge to the “material support” statute, HLP v. Gonzales. Shane has testified before Congress on the material witness statute and is a contributor to the Center’s book Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, 2006." That previous remarks here state "associate-level work on a handful of cases, a number of which aren't remotely notable" suggests that they have not actually looked at the sources. T L Miles (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has been named as counsel in a number of articles, and added a few comments. His notability comes from his clients, not from himself. Again, simply being an attorney for someone famous does not make one famous. See WP:NOTINHERITED. THF is correct on this score. On another matter, I will also hold off nominating these articles for 30 days as suggested.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per the article, you might characterize his writing columns for publications such as The Guardian, or being interviewed in a number of papers on a number of different cases as "named as counsel in a number of articles, and added a few comments" but I believe that to be an inaccurate summation of the sources. I believe an unprejudiced look at the references now in the article demonstrates this. These show quite clearly that he is notable in and of himself, for his body work, not inherited from others. T L Miles (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Being interviewed regarding cases an attorney is involved in is par for the course. If this imparted notability, half of the litigators in the United States would have their own wikipedia article. The subjects of the article are the clients, not the attorney. He merely acts as the voice of the client, his advocate, nothing else. When looked at objectively, the links display that the "notability" of the subject is merely inherited from the clients he represents. He's not the story, his clients are.Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Having a notable client doesn't make someone notable. Something additional is required to make an individual notable. For Kadidal why doesn't being picked by US security officials to be the target of warrantless wiretap make him notable? Why doesn't taking a lead role in suing the US government for those wiretaps make him notable? Various publications have chosen to seek out his comments on cases he is not a party to [27], [28] -- why doesn't this make him notable? Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I started this AFD. The individual is not independently notable, and the fact that the subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted. It is obvious the subject's "notability" is inherited from his clients' notability as detainees. The excuse is to, unwisely, use Clarence Darrow as an example. Ignored is the fact that Darrow's notability arose as the result of later coverage, when he was the subject of movies, and the fact he wrote four books. Darrow's notability arises not from his work, but from the later coverage he received in print and film. Note that these features are missing regarding the subject of this AFD discussion. Examples of an attorney rising to the level of notable include being chosen as a member of the judiciary, heading legal organizations, and significant legal scholarship published by reputable publishers. The subject's role in representing his clients are not independently noteworthy. An attorney's role as advocate for his client, as further required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, dictates that he zealously represent his client's interests, doing so is expected (and further required), but it does not impart notability. Further, an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently. For this reason, motions are brought in the name of the client, through his counsel, not in the name of the attorney alone. Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since you wrote "subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted." I feel compelled to ask you to actually read the references now attached to the article: your statement is most certainly is not "admitted" nor supported by those references. His notability comes from his work as a lawyer, which began (and gained write ups in the New York Times) before Guantanamo was opened, involves work as a spokesperson for an organisation which coordinates a broad defense of these and other clients, and organizes opposition to both Guantanamo and the broader political behavior of the United States government. This includes, but is not limited to, being a spokesperson for a suit against the NSA, in which he himself is party, other suits not involving Guantanamo defendants (such as HLP v. Gonzales) interviews, speeches (I've seen him speak several times here in NYC), and authorship of articles, columns on two continents. You write (correctly) "an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently." But if you actually examine this specific article (as opposed to writing things about all these AFDs you're pushing collectively), you will see that this particular individual is notable far beyond merely defending a single notable client, and for things beyond all the Guantanamo clients.T L Miles (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Yes, I read the references. It appears that the subject represeents people in cases. If you ran my name, you would come up with a number of the same types of articles and volume, yet I do not pretend to be notable. The statement was made by Sherurcij that you now "contest". Bringing suit against the NSA does not really make one noteworthy, either, nor does acting as a "spokesperson" for the parties. Acting as a lawyer does not confer notability, nor does giving speeches. As it stands, the subject is not notable. His clients are notable. The article should be deleted as failing notability requirements. The case materials in the form of filings should be included under each of his notable clients, not under tha name of the attorney who wrote them on behalf of that client. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Your logic would mean that no lawyer could be notable for their work as a lawyer. As an historian, would I never be notable, since I too only write about others? If I were interviewed (with big photos mind you, as Shane was recently) in ABC Madrid and SudDeutche Zietung would I remain non-notable? If I wrote editorials on my opinions on a wide variety of topics in a number of publications over several years, on topics which I did not directly work, would that be "Inherited"? Inherited from what? Being famous? T L Miles (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - It means an attorney must gain notability by something other than representing notable clients. In the cases you are presenting to me, you are providing examples of what lawyers do. They write and advocate for the client's interests. In effect, when writing or talking about his client, the attorney is merely a mouthpiece for that interest. He "is" the client. Do you understand? There is no difference in speaking to the press about your client as speaking to the Court about your client. As a historian, you do not share the interests of your clients, and your works are notable in and of themselves. In the same manner, if an attorney writes a history of legal precedent in 18th century village live in a small hamlet located in Berkshire from review of manorial court records, he would gain the same notability as a historian who writes about various historical subjects. I hope that clears this up.Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Except he's not "speaking to the press about his client": He's speaking to the press about Guantanamo in general, the Bush Administration's legal policies, the NSA's wiretapping policies, Immigration policy etc. He's also writing about these and topics as diverse as obscenity law, patent law, drug policy, plant resources of developing nations, etc... He's quoted in academic publications, UN documents, in Law School syllabi as an expert on these fields: and was before working at the CCR or the detaining of the people at Guantanamo. Very little of his work is actually filing motions for individual clients. Thus by your own construction above, he is notable for his works in and of themselves. Look, some of this batch of lawyers that you're pushing to have deleted may not be notable: I really don't now cause I haven't looked at the references. I would like to see some indication that this is not a mass AfD and that your arguments do not rest on "they're all lawyers for notable clients" and on the specifics of this individual. T L Miles (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - In speaking about GTMO, he is speaking for the interests of his clients, and in speaking for the interests of his client, he is critical of GTMO. Why? because his duty as an attorney is to get his client's out of GTMO, therefore his clients are vitcims of, as you put it, "Bush Administration policies". Bringing a lawsuit hardly makes one notable. Is a person notable for bringing a tort claim, for instance? He has written an opinion for the Huffington Post (a blog) about his clients, for instance, hardly a shining example of journalistic integrity and vetting. He has allegedly "contributed materials (not authored as asserted) for the book Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, 2006. Yet this comes not from the work itself, but from a biography linked from the Huffington Post. I also note that you have placed subjective importance to this individual's work. I realize that you and many others may support inclusion of the subject because he is an attorney representing GTMO clients who may be notable, but I must state again that notability is not inherited. Notability requires siginificant coverage, and I have yet to see any argument on this line either. In conclusion, the subject is not notable according to Wikipedia's definitions. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being quoted in a few publication doesn't satisfy the "substantial coverage" required by WP:BIO. Googlenews picks up nothing besides for a six court documents. Small town lawyers can do better then that. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: and leaving out the middle initials (which he rarely uses), produces over ten pages of google news results. Please look at the article. If what you wrote above were true, where did I find all the references?T L Miles (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY and consistency with general unwritten Wikipedia consensus about the notability of pundits, but the article has a lot of wikipuffery that needs to be cleared out. Article should be moved to Shayana Kadidal after closure of AfD if kept. THF (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in agreement with THF. The article feels quite spammy and can definitely benefit from a sandblasting. But coverage in RS meets WP:PEOPLE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for failure to demonstrate any independent coverage. I'm invoking WP:SNOW to close the discussion early, as no other outcome but delete is likely based on discussion to date. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum aetherdynamics[edit]

This is original research, with no independent coverage. All material relating to this theory comes from self-published books and articles; there is no sign that anybody other than the two authors has ever referred to this theory. Looie496 (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed that no independent coverage seems to exist. Their own press release describes them as amateur physicists. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To some, being an amateur yet still succeeding in a field is a badge to be worn with pride. If professional physicists are so great, howcome they haven't found the theory of everything? Remember that Einstein was also an amateur working outside the clique of academe! And Wikipedia isn't just about what professionals say, else there wouldn't be so many articles on anime. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry if I implied that amateurs are inferior to professionals, or that Wikipedia shouldn't listen to amateurs, as neither of these was my intention. Indeed, Wikipedia is largely a creation of amateurs who have pulled of something more popular than well financed encyclopedia publishers have managed. What I'm looking for is the verification that the authors are "succeeding in the field." Or more humbly, that they are at least being noticed. If their book has not been reviewed by reliable sources, or at least garnered media attention, then their work is not notable. So you see, the validity of their work doesn't matter, nor should it, as Wikipedia editors are not in the business of deciding what the correct theory of everything is. Instead, we are just trying to limit our coverage of theories of physics to those that are noteworthy. And if no reliable sources have reviewed this theory, then we have no way of distinguishing it from the whole body of crank physics book out there. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-professional contributions to science are sometimes covered in Wikipedia if they are widely commented upon by mainstream sources. Which is not the case here. A theory needs to be well-regarded by somebody besides its own inventors. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the level of professionalism involved there are no independent sources; everything is self-published. Ironholds (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that the work is reliably sourced, and is notable in that it has been commented upon by, inter alia:
- Arthur C. Clarke, who had the decency to admit that it was 'way over his head'
- Professor VV Raman of the Rochester Institute of Technology, reviewer of the likes of Dawkins and Penrose, who wrote of the book Secrets of the Aether that it is 'highly original...deserves careful attention before passing judgment'
- Dr. Phil Risby of the University of London who said that it may hold the key to a new level of understanding
- James Jacobs, creator of Helical Geometry, who is constructing a version of quantum aetherdynamics' Helicoid Torus Model
In addition:
- The work was featured in Infinite Energy magazine, volume 12, issue 69
- The authors were invited to present their paper at the Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory conference hosted by Professor M. C. Duffy of the University of Sunderland, at a venue in Imperical College, London
And it was also selected to be beamed into space as part of the the second ever email to the Galactic Internet...jokes aside, it was broadcast as a part of the Cosmic Call 2003 program from a powerful satellite dish in the Ukraine.
Thus I would submit that while the mainstream media might not publish much about this sort of thing (you don't read too many articles about topos theory in your daily tabloid either) it is at least relatively notable within its highly specialised field. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And do you have any evidence to back these claims up? Ironholds (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - ..and can you provide it? Ironholds (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there's enough media coverage to justify notability: see 1, 2, 3, and 4. However, this only establishes notability, it doesn't establish reliable sources that back up what the article is saying. Therefore, I'd have to say delete. Matt (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an article in the Northwest Herald of McHenry County, Illinois, a press release, another press release, and a self-published book whose author can't spell very well. Doesn't establish notability in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases by the creator(s)/inventor(s) of a subject, such as the one re-printed by UPI that you cited, do not establish notability. As Wikipedia:Notability explains, notability is established by multiple published works that document the subject in depth from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that are independent of the subject. Press releases by the creator(s)/inventor(s) of a subject are not independent. Please determine notability properly. Uncle G (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the notability established, then. Remember that the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Hence, it doesn't matter if the theory is true or not, it matters only whether the article gives an accurate description of what quantum aetherdynamics is about. Thus, as long as all claims made by the theory are contextualised as such, and not as statements of truth, then they can be included. At a minimum, surely the article (and to be honest this would require a rewrite) could include only and all the information mentioned in the third party sources you give above (and the others that exist)?
The solution seems to be to rework the article so that it includes the right sort of information, and not just delete it out of hand. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A press release provided by the creator(s) of the concept is not a third-party source. Uncle G (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete author is on a soapbox unbecoming of a mainstream encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless serious and detailed discussions on the theory at hand, by established physicists in reputable sources, are forthcoming. PR Newswire, philsci-archive, or a newspaper column where the creator is permitted to sensationalize the theory without question, do not cut it. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable physics theory with low-quality references that appear to be self-published. Cardamon (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fringe hokum. Verbal chat 09:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cardamon and others. Tonywalton ^Talk 10:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources offered. N p holmes (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI agree - until the theory has been peer reviewed and found to have some merit - it should be deleted. PhySusie (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "a new paradigm in physics" should be published in reliable sources, not Wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't the right place to rail against "orthodox lackeys of the Ptolemaic establishment". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable nonsense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all above, original research and soapboxing: it has the potential to revolutionise physics much like the discovery of Copernicus did so many centuries ago. Sorry, but the earth is still flat, Ptolemy was right, and man will never fly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per just about everybody. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Nowhere near the level of reliable sourcing we'd need for something like this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this statement and the previous one, extraordinary claims don't require better sources in Wikipedia than ordinary claims, just equally good ones. Also I ask any future commenters to refrain from making unnecessarily insulting remarks. Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the principle that exceptional claims require exceptional sources is part of Wikipedia policy. You may want to try [Citizendium], where standards are looser. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text of that section merely says "high quality sources", and in practice that's all we ever ask for. If an article about this theory had been published in a basic reputable physics journal like Phys Rev, I don't think we would ask for more. I will clarify, though: exceptional claims without exceptional sources should be characterized as fringe when they are described. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless lets-all-pile-in delete - worthless rubbish: the toilets strike back! But Boris is wrong; this calls for wackopedia William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
o.O Delete - not enough here to provide verification, notability, etc. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone but article creator. Is it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, adding a superfluous vote only because I want to qualify as an "orthodox lackey of the Ptolemaic establishment."[29] That sounds cool. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you get free tunnel vision, too. I image that allows you through use the quantum tunnelling to look through solid walls, but I don't know exactly which superpowers you get in the Ptolemaic order. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is a not a repertory of crackpot theories.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Yourself to Live[edit]

Article fails WP:MUSIC. Song is an album track that has never been released as a single, has never placed on any international music charts, and has never been nominated for any significant music awards.

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion per the same rationale I used in creating this AfD:

Delete the lot, fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: non-notable non-charting songs. JamesBurns (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. per nom. Note: There are other Black Sabbath songs that could have been added to this afd list. Perhaps it should be expanded to include the rest? Fair Deal (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of songs. I didn't have time to get them all this time around. Maybe I'll create another more comprehensive AfD later. Enigma^msg 16:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's always pita to have "combined" AfDs. What might begin with some sort of laziness will soon evolve into a real mess. About all Sabbath songs from the first four or five albums have been covered by lots of notable artists, Biohazard being one of them. Does nobody have some secondary literature to expand the articles? "After Forever (song)" has been released as a single and was inspiration to at least two bands' respective names (not to mention the cover versions). "Killing Yourself to Live" was released as a single by another band and inspired Chuck Klosterman's book of the same name. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean "pity" not pita. It wasn't laziness. I'm perfectly willing to create individual AfDs on every single NN song I find, but it seems a waste of space when I can combine them into one AfD. If you don't like combined/bundled AfDs, this is not the place to rail against them. Enigma^msg 00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hexi does have a great sense of humour. I was getting entertained by the thought that he maybe he meant to put pita... and it made me start thinking about what I might combine on my own pita. We have to have humour... even in a heated debate. Hmmm heated pita combo. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you spell "PAIN IN THE ASS" then? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The generally accepted way would be PITA. Enigma^msg 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you then, I'm still learning English. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, per WP:NSONGS. Canniba loki 00:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete all non-notable album tracks. Wether B (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant album articles, as the WP:NSONGS section people are linking to suggests. These are plausible search terms without sufficient sourced information to warrant separate articles. ~ mazca ^t|c 01:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Master of Reality, liberally {{Cn}}-tagging unsourced information, on the grounds that one good album article beats 8 song stubs, and maintenance (such as sourcing) will be easier. Precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fountain of Salmacis(Genesis song) [sic]. I did this with Black Sabbath Vol. 4 (and those Genesis songs), and I think Master of Reality, at 9,855 bytes, could benefit from this treatment. If a Merge is agreed upon, I'd be happy to perform the operation.
(Incidentally, a restore of the deleted Lord of This World article would be helpful for such a merge, even if only so I can confirm it has no salvageable information.) / edg ☺ ☭ 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "After Forever". It was released as a single by an extremly notible band Black Sabbath. It was covered by another notable band Biohazard, who also produced a video of the song. I also think it is bad form and precedent to nominate three articles under one umbrella nomination. BTW Merge "Solitude" with Master of Reality and Merge "Killing Yourself to Live" with Sabbath Bloody Sabbath (although the fact that is was covered by Anal Cunt, alone should warrent it having its own page).-J04n (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The band's notability does not transfer automatically to every one of their songs. Being covered a few times is also not sufficient to base an article. I would suggest a redirect to the article page, with cover information noted there. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article is nominated in Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of Black Sabbath songs that merit inclusion. These do not. Captain panda 04:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - non-notable album tracks. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP After Forever & delete the other 2. "After Forever" is a single from 1971 (...), it has a source coverage so it passes the criteria. The other 2 articles do not pass. Nominators should inform themselves before they nominate.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 10:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, album tracks that aren't notable. TheClashFan (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete all I believe that the AF single is a pirate release and not a legit issue. I would also add that the song Black Sabbath should have been added to this AFD along with a few non-single tracks from later releases. Another AfD in the waiting. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, Wikipedia relies on verifiability rather than on belief. The song Black Sabbath has a key role in the evolution if the whole heavy metal music genre. It is covered by non-trivial and independent sources. No evidence for deletion.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 11:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Key role is subjective pov no matter who says it. In the end it is still just a non-single, non-charting album track and the useful content from it could easily go back into the debut album article. All non-single, non-charting songs should be merged and deleted... no matter who has done a cover version of the song. "Cover version" is no different from "in popular culture" when it comes right down to it. And we have WP:TRIVIA to try and stress avoiding "in popular culture" styled content... which is really what text about a cover version is. Just nn trivia. Every Metallica album track has been deleted... every Iron Maiden album track has been deleted, every Queen album track has been deleted... every Megadeth album track etc etc etc. Soon they can all be turfed. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can of course delete all song articles, and after we're finished we can follow the example of the German Wikipedia and delete about all album articles. Even Kraftwerk got two thirds of their album articles deleted.[30]. Two thirds is a good figure if you compare the 2.8m English articles to the 0.9m German ones... But what I really don't understand - what's the difference between some redirects to an album article, which then is overloaded and not much inviting to edit - and some rather small articles that invite especially new or occasional editors to make their contributions. BTT: As mentioned above about all Sabbath songs of the first four or five albums are notable - just take a look at dozens of guitar magazines analysing those riffs to death (same with at least Metallica up to their Black Album and to a certain amount also for the rest of your list), or all the other articles and books that have been written the past 40 years (Sabbath, 25 for Metallica). Again, we can of course delete all those songs, and people will never reflect that 3rd party coverage. But is that really what we want? Remember we're not talking about the song of some American Idol contestant (which of course would be notable if it ranked one week at #199 on the Billboard 200 - what a joke), but some classics that will sure be covered by young bands for decades to come - something that's already accepted for material by the Beatles. And even they have still about 100 stubs - shall we delete them, too? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. http://www.covertrek.com/findArtist.html list the cover bands that have covered various songs of them. Killing Yourself To Live was covered by AC/DC. The band Cathedral has covered the song Solitude. Dream Focus 12:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After Forever, Killing Yourself to Live and just in case: Black Sabbath, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath... "Solitude" is the name of several songs, the Sabbath song can be found easily following the links.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 12:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Solitude (song) I've added some reasonable refs thanks Thruxton (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Album tracks that won no awards or were listed on any charts and there are no reliable sources establishing any additional notability. Fails WP:NSONGS.--Sloane (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see also Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion/Killing Yourself to Live. I closed this AfD as Delete & Redirect, but have re-opened it as I closed it 24h early by mistake. Black Kite 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rules clearly state if they have been covered by a notable band, then the songs are notable. All three of these songs have been covered by some very notable bands. So why are you trying to delete them? Dream Focus 21:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It actually says "... have been performed independently by several notable artists", not "a notable band". Also, most of the covers indicated are on Black Sabbath tribute albums (and I can't find evidence of AC/DC covering this song either). Black Kite 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy says "covered, but not on tribute albums"? Is it the same that also says "delete and recreate the pages as redirects, so that those suckers can not merge the content to the target page"? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Covers on a tribute album are hardly "independent", are they? Oh, and nice failure to assume good faith there, so I'll respond in kind. The policy that says delete is the one where consensus is decided at AfD, and the guideline that says they should be recreated as redirects is WP:NSONGS. But if someone else wants to close this as redirect, merge, keep or anything else I really couldn't give a shit any more, because I'm sick of the disruptive wikilawyering round AfD that's being orchestrated by a few users. Black Kite 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always understood "independent" as "independent from the original artist". So if Ozzy plays "Paranoid" it is not independent from Sabbath. But if Metallica, Megadeth and AC/DC cover several songs for a tribute album it is independent. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not. And as mentioned before, and reverted by you: Why delete and recreate a page if not to prevent a merge of the content? Protecting the page after redirecting would have been enough. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable album track. Bastique ^demandez 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which one of the three? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G1, nonsense) by Pascal.Tesson. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thain Witham[edit]

Can't find anything on this. sounds hoax-like. A csd was removed by the article's creator and replaced by a revamp tag. Nothing indicates the article meets, or will be able to meet WP:BIO. Taroaldo (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G12 by Aleta. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recident evil Game2[edit]

Written as a review/personal essay. The article already exists here. Taroaldo (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Fails WP:NOR, has no encyclopedic value and also fails WP:NOTFORUM which would include an essay like this. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyright violation. It's IGN's old review of Resident Evil 2: http://ign64.ign.com/articles/160/160798p1.html TJ Spyke 03:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDILY REDIRECTED. It's just another name for a notable EP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matinée (EP)[edit]

There is little out there. There is nothing on the page except song listing and what it obviously is. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 02:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable non-charting EP. JamesBurns (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Would this be about a song that was released in the United Kingdom in 2004 which made the Top 10? If so, surely that makes it notable? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some research, I have discovered that it is. So I say redirect to The Dark of the Matinée. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was changed to disambig page. (non-admin closure) Wiggles _oinks ^waddles 19:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wet blanket[edit]

Only listed as AFD because it is older. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KJS 77 02:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect to fire blanket would be appropriate per the first meaning of the word. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think it's possible to create a useful article about this term. I don't believe that anyone looking for information about the term "wet blanket" would be satisfied with an article on "fire blanket". Deb (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been bold and turned this into a disambiguation page, since I don't think a redirect to fire blanket is quite appropriate, and the current content violates WP:DICDEF, and I found several targets to link to in the dabpage. If you think this was innappropriate, please let me know and/or revert the edit. Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal university[edit]

Seems like a non notable term. A quick google search turns up no unique hits. References supplied are not about the term itself but more about ADHD. Nothing verifiable about the content other than the ADHD stuff.Delete TheRingess (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete As currently written this article is not up to Wiki standards and also seems to be an advertisement. As well, I don't see much notability. Sorry. Basket of Puppies 07:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Dmol (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = This is a proposal for a future school, not an encyclopedia article. None of this exists, not even as a white paper. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional age regression[edit]

Unreferenced OR. Reads like a personal essay. Deprodded with the instruction to 'first look for refs'. Anyone who cares to do so is welcome; the only ones I've run across relate to Age regression in therapy, not the use of the 'theme' in fiction. -- Vary Talk 02:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there are no references, and I don't see any in the article or anywhere else, then this is original research. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It just takes a little experimentation with search strings ""age regression" fiction -therapy -hypnosis"age regression" fiction -therapy -hypnosis" in google books yields [31]--see in particular the 3rd one down. "Age regression is a popular theme in transformation fiction involving the physical reduction in age by a character" from [32],alongwith some examples on that and the following pages. The article needs of course to be written to take this into account,m but we do not delete for unreferenced, just unreferenceable. DGG (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, that is fancy footwork, tapping around Google. Congratulations, you got me. But...this really means the title is incorrect--should be "age regression in fiction," an entirely different animal. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - DGG hasn't quite "got you". Notice that "the third one down" is the infamous Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. This is a Wikipedia mirror in book form (that doesn't conform to the GFDL, by the way), as the little "[WP]" next to the article that DGG quotes indicates. The fact that it's word-for-word identical with this 2005 version of age regression is a big clue, also. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the others (in the first five pages, anyway) all appear to be false positives: references to hypnotherapy that weren't filtered out by the search, age regression as an effect of certain psychoactive substances, 'age regression models' used in medical studies, and uses of the phrase in actual fiction, but no scholarly discussion of age regression as a literary theme. -- Vary Talk 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Drmies and keep. The title is obviously faulty but based on the reference found it does have WP:POTENTIAL. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second time that I've seen that this particular Wikipedia mirror has fooled people at AFD. It's not a reliable source. It's us from a couple of years ago, blindly copied and pasted with no editorial oversight, no fact checking, and no proper author, link, and history information given per the requirements of the GFDL. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are there any sources that are actually about this topic, or just mention it? Has anyone actually studied this? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, now that this "Webster's" is out (and thanks, Uncle G, for your explanation--I should have done more than just look at the one page and the cover), I don't know where else the term might be found. It's certainly not in any of the literary handbooks on my shelf (the Abrams, Princeton, Penguin, and Columbia dictionaries of literary terms and terminology). And if the term existed, it ought to be in there, given that the article proposes older, established authors such as F. Scott Fitzgerald and T.H. White--I mean, it can't be that the term isn't in my handbooks cause it only appears in real "new" fiction. For the time being, I'm sticking to my earlier delete vote. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't found any. There appears to be no real topic here. The only reason that this article exists in the first place is that age regression was split. This content came from the random collection of fictional mentions that was originally in that article. This article is the byproduct of some cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing at age regression. There's nothing that I can find that links the disparate ideas of Merlin living backwards with body swap movies, both of which we have covered (albeit not in very great detail in the former case) in their respective articles, and brings them together under the umbrella of a single topic, by this or any other title. Uncle G (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename "Age regression in fiction". Some discussion on age regression is provided in The New Yorker ~~and this book about the works of Stephen King~~; multiple examples of usage are given here and here. Many more sources (some actually relevant) are available by searching Google Books/Scholar for "Fountain of Youth" fiction theme (354/865 respectively). In my opinion, "Fountain of youth" is *not* a better title since we already have that article focusing on the actual fountain, and since it implies permanent youthfulness, not a transformation theme. Care should be taken to avoid this source which provides helpful advice like: "Important Note: Most AR-Infantilist readers have strong predilections towards either cloth or disposable diapers. Unless you are trying to reach a specific audience, have the protagonist wear both at different times to please everyone." – 74 01:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC) (edit: strike poor source, leave bad source – 74 03:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Note--the New Yorker article doesn't add anything but a single explicit mention of "age regression" without actually discussing the term as a concept. Also, that ARwriting guide, that just blew me away... Drmies (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do think you short the New Yorker. The article weaves together multiple time-regression stories/books into a common theme examination of "Why do I exist now instead of in the past or the future? Why does time only move forward? What would it be like to live life backward, from old age to infancy?" I'll admit the review of Stephen King's works is significantly less impressive. – 74 02:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As Uncle G said below, "But [the article in the New Yorker is] not a discussion of a trope in fiction. And the King book? One single mention of "age regression" and no discussion of the trope. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have trouble accepting that an article about several instances of the theme does not adequately cover the theme itself, but alright, here's a book discussing the theme of a "literal return to youth", another covering youth in fiction, and another stating "the theme of return to youth is old and widespread". None of these are centrally devoted to age regression, but it is widespread (I hardly need a secondary source to tell me that a primary source which features age regression… features age regression) though well-camoflaged in available resources. I suspect that the correct search will reveal a number of sources; I have, however, been unable to find that search. – 74 03:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        … which is unsurprising once one accepts the premise that there isn't something to find. Once again, you point to things for which we have articles, and which the sources don't actually connect. Friedan is discussing the impact of baby boomers' tastes on popular culture, content which obviously belongs in the "impact on history and culture" section of that very article. The Greenwood encyclopaedia's article is "Youth". And the subjects that it discusses at the very page you link to are youth, eternal youth, (of course) the Fountain of Youth, and so forth. Browne and Motz are discussing the "Water of Life". And guess what? It's that Fountain of Youth again (to which water of life redirects, note). Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You've just managed to include a wide swath of articles to describe a simple theme. Do you really expect someone interested in "age regression in fiction" to read bits and pieces of 10 different articles to assemble the information they're looking for? How is this person supposed to find which articles might tangentially cover the topic of interest? We aren't limited by the number of citations to a particular source, nor are we constrained by limitations of print media. – 74 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We are constrained, however, by our mission to create an encyclopaedia, not a grab-bag of stuff made up off the tops of the heads of Wikipedia editors. If the world has not already assembled that information and documented it as human knowledge, we have no business doing so in the encyclopaedia. We don't invent our own subjects that don't already exist. Lots of people are interested in lots of subjects that haven't been documented yet. They research them and document them, in the proper outlets for doing so. Wikipedia is not here to publish primary research to satisfy that desire. No original research. Please refresh your memory of our basic policies and goals. Uncle G (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Some of us are apparently more constrained than others. Age regression *is* a common theme in fiction, and I've pointed you to multiple different sources saying so, and multiple primary sources showing so. WP:OR (or, more appropriately, WP:SYNTH) does not apply; no synthesis is necessary to pull multiple corroborating statements from different sources and combine them into an article that summarizes those statements—that's called editing, which some editors do when not arguing about deletion. I suspect nothing I say is going to change your mind, and I'm thoroughly through trying. – 74 19:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The sources provided so far:
        A wikipedia mirror.
        
        An essay on two novels both dealing with age regression
        
        TVTropes.org An admittedly enjoyable and interesting wiki, and often useful in its way, but not even close to what we could call a WP:RS.—This is part of a comment by Vary (of 21:54, 13 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:
        No, but it serves as a clear listing of primary sources. – 74 23:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it does. As I explained in my last comment, below, it doesn't matter how many primary sources (examples of reverse aging in fiction) we can find if there is no sourced discussion of them as a theme. They would be usful sources to build an already sourced article, but they don't fix the current article's problems. It doesn't want for 'in pop culture' references. See Uncle G's 'cargo cult' essay linked above. -- Vary Talk 01:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Metamorphasis.org, more user-submitted content with no fact-checking, less amusing imo, not that it matters, but its equally unreliable, which definitely does.—This is part of a comment by Vary (of 21:54, 13 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:
        Another clear listing of primary sources. – 74 23:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The age regression writer's guide (shudder)
        
        The Fountain of Age (by Betty Friedan, author of 'The Feminine Mystique) An unquestionalbly useful work, but unfortunately it's about actual aging and appears to only briefly mention 'returns to youth' in popular culture; and it is, as I think has been pointed out, more applicable to the 'fountain of Youth' trope than age regression as dealt with in the article.—This is part of a comment by Vary (of 21:54, 13 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:
        Except she quotes "fantasies of a literal return to youth became a movie and television formula" and "Hollywood has been playing to this intensifying dread of age with fantasies of a literal return to youth". If you insist on renaming the article "fountain of youth trope" fine, but are they really two different things? "Fountain of youth" can simply be a metaphor for age regression. But, because age regression does not require a "fountain of youth" (see primary sources above) the article "Fountain of youth" would seem a poor choice of location. – 74 23:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's the problem. We have sources that discuss the 'fountain of youth' theme, so we can talk about it as a theme on Wikipedia. If we were to move this article as you propose, the OR on reverse aging that doesn't fit that theme would need to go. But I think we're better off merging anything salvagable to the current article on the FoY. (Though the sources found here are more useful than anything that's in the article itself, imo). -- Vary Talk 01:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The Greenwood encyclopedia, which again deals exclusively with the Fountain of Youth: Peter Pan and Dorian Grey, not Benjamin Button or Merlin (the wizard is mentioned; his peculiar aging process is apparently not).—This is part of a comment by Vary (of 21:54, 13 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:
        Quoting: Following in the footsteps of Ponce de Leon … writers have devised ways to allow adults to become young again." Not the most substantial source, sure, but clearly a reference to age regression. – 74 23:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, like I said. The 'ponce de leon' bit is of course a reference (and a fleeting one at that) to the fountain of youth and then gives some examples from more recent popular culture. We don't need examples, we have them in spades. -- Vary Talk 01:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Eye on the future By Ray Broadus Browne says: "This theme of the return to youth is old and widespread. The most popular conception has always been the fabulous Water of Life-usually found after a long quest and always powerful against both death and disease." That is all the book has to say on the matter; two lines, one of which is exclusively about the fountain of youth.—This is part of a comment by Vary (of 21:54, 13 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:
        No, this is all Google books bothers to say on the matter; page 215 is not available. – 74 23:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So we're to assume that the book veers sharply from the Fountain of Youth to talk about children learning lessons about parenting through reverse aging? For one page, in time to pick up on 216 with 'Beowulf'? Judging from the footnotes for that chapter (pg 221) it does no such thing. -- Vary Talk 01:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Did I miss any? In order to write a decent article on a given subject, we need reliable, non-trivial third party sources on said subject. We have many sources, but none of them are non-trivial (that is, primarily about age regression in fiction) reliable (from a reputable publication as opposed to an open wiki) and third party (sources that talk about age regression in fiction as opposed to examples of age regression in fiction) all at the same time. -- Vary Talk 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The sources do not need to be "primarily about age regression", they only need non-trivial coverage, generally more than a couple sentences. Do these sources qualify? I think that's a question for AfD to answer. – 74 23:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
        More than a couple sentences is not enough to qualify as non-trivial coverage. But the sources above (the reliable ones, anyway) contain no coverage at all that meets all the required qualifications. They're great sources for the fountain of youth, but as you pointed out, that's not what's being discussed in this article.
        
        Also, it's better to avoid breaking up other editors' signed comments wherever possible, as it fragments discussion (as you see above). -- Vary Talk 01:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        My alternatives were to try responding point-by-point and forcing readers to jump back and forth, or copy (nearly) your entire post and respond inline. What I see above is a bunch of fluff making it near to impossible to edit further. I thought my formatting was clear, but I have now replaced all the unsigned templates with my signature and added a note at the top (which I neglected the first time). Anyway, "age regression in fiction" may not be the best title; I personally believe "Fountain of Youth" is a poor title as well. You are welcome to propose whatever title you prefer. – 74 13:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said above, if we were to move this article to reflect the sourced 'fountain of youth' theme (which is not even dealt with in the article), the OR on reverse aging that doesn't fit that theme would need to go - but the OR needs to go whether we move the article or not. Again, I think we'd be better off moving anything usable to the current article than starting a new one on the Fountain of Youth as a 'theme' (and it would be a new article; there is literally nothing on that subject in the current one, the whole thing is pure essay). At any rate, moving the page will not fix this article's problems: the problem is the unsourced content, not the title. -- Vary Talk 14:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        By my count we have one reference using "literal return to youth", another using "return to youth" and "Water-of-Life", another alluding to the "Fountain of Youth" and using "ways to allow adults to become young again", another using "reversion to youth", a couple unathoratitive sources using "Fountain of Youth", "regressing to an earlier age", and "age transformation", and one bad source using "age regression". I think "return to youth" sums it up nicely. Would you accept renaming the article "Return to youth (fictional theme)" (or something similar), deleting the OR, and stubbing the article with the (non-shudder) sources above? – 74 01:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not to put too fine a point on it, but no, I wouldn't. We can't justify putting whatever sourced content someone might hypothetically decide to write on the FoY using the (skimpy) sources suggested here under the title 'Return to Youth' instead because of one fleeting mention in a book about real aging and a review of a novel that involves reverse aging (a reviewer pointing out a similarity between a novel and a short story simply does not qualify as a source for a literary theme.) If we want to treat age regression as a 'theme' we need to find sources that discuss it as such. I don't think we have enough here to write an article on a 'Fountain of Youth' theme, let alone anything that would include any of the content in the article that's actually under discussion here. Therefore, based on the sources that have been offered to far, my !vote is not to 'merge', 'rewrite' or 'redirect', but to delete the page. -- Vary Talk 13:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The two wikis that you point to, in addition to having no identifiable authors whose reputations for fact checking and accuracy can be ascertained, almost certainly got their information from Wikipedia in the first place. One of them echoes this very article's purported (but unsupported by any source) age progression/regression dichotomy. (The other, as you yourself observe, isn't even on point, since it deals with the Fountain of Youth.) They both post-date Wikipedia's age regression page, which has been propounding this purported dichotomy with no supporting sources since 2004, by several years.
  The book on Stephen King says nothing at all about this being a trope in fiction, and indeed says little to nothing about it as a specific plot motif in that specific story; and we already have an article on Stephen King's Golden Years, which is the subject that it is actually dealing with in depth. The New Yorker is close to being a proper source, but that doesn't try to present the umbrella topic that this article does. It doesn't link Merlin to body-swap movies to Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Rewind. It does discuss The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and another related story (which our article should at least mention, but currently doesn't). But it's not a discussion of a trope in fiction. It's in fact a book review of a single story: The Confessions of Max Tivoli by Andrew Sean Greer. Indeed, that latter article already mentions this very book review.
  I'm certainly not convinced by any of that that there's any coherent topic here. Everything that you've pointed to, like the subjects of Merlin and body swap movies that I mentioned above, is already covered (albeit insufficiently in a couple of cases) in appropriate articles and nothing that you show indicates that the world has grouped all of these disparate things together, let alone discussed and properly documented in trustworthy fashion any sort of underlying concept that unifies them. Certainly what you've explicitly pointed to doesn't do so. I couldn't find anything, either. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rewrite, variations of fountains of youth are common themes in fiction 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- … which would be an argument for keeping Fountain of Youth. Please address the article under discussion here. Uncle G (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article is about getting younger, the fountain of youth is a fountain that provides a potable used to get younger. I *AM* discussing this article. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no reliable sources -- Wikipedia mirrors and garbled Google searches finding other topics do not count. DreamGuy (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to no apparent sources that actually discuss this in depth as a fiction motif. Article is essentially a longwinded restatement of "Here's something that I noticed happens in some movies" and then names those movies. There's really just no article here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Rosenthal (musician)[edit]

Fails every single point of WP:MUSIC. An attempt is made to provide notability by name dropping some very very minor musicians but as we know notability is not provided by knowing someone... Cameron Scott (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Abstain with comment~~Weak keep - I've been working on this article since it was created. I removed the db tag after the author claimed notability with three unlinked news articles. Eventually, I found two of the articles online and replaced the unlinked references on the page with their linked versions. I can't find the third article and I've given up as it gives no reference to where it was published. I think the question now is, does two articles fulfill "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:N. Sources is plural but does that only mean two? My head tells me to be an inclusionist and say keep but my gut tells me delete (which is why I'm abstaining). OlYeller^Talktome 05:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author has now supplied 3 verifiable references that show significant coverage in a reliable source that are independent of the subject. I changed my vote to keep.OlYeller^Talktome 19:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There does seem to be notability, so it's possible the article can be kept. More sources would be great, however. Basket of Puppies 07:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few more sources were posted today to strengthen case for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please advise if this amount successfully meets the requirements. One is a blog, which normally isn't valid, but it is from the Salt Lake Tribune and its an announcement of the concert at the Rose Wagner theater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.14.42 (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding OlYeller 's comment that he'd "given up as it gives no reference to where it was published." - I found the article in question and replaced it with his inadequate prior reference.Jasonhankins435 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I haven't looked at the new references completely yet. As for my comment, I was frustrated that I wasn't getting any help from the author after repeatedly asking. I probably could have stated my feelings in a better way and for that, I'm sorry. Please accept my apology. Oh, and please sign your posts with ~~~~ so that people know what sections of commentary are yours. OlYeller^Talktome 18:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How? what element of WP:MUSIC is presented - please be specific.--Cameron Scott (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OlYeller - I'm sorry, I guess I missed that you had repeatedly asked me to do something. Through what avenue were you asking me? I will be sure to look for your requests and follow up on them asap.

No worries. Here's where I had left you some messages: [33][34][35]. It doesn't really matter at this point and I totally understand that that you could have missed them. I'll do a write up on the talk page to see if we can get these issues worked out (if they haven't already been by the sources you've added). OlYeller^Talktome 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on how I could cite that he is a University of Utah graduate as is recommended on the page? I am having difficulty with that one. Jasonhankins435 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than finding something in an article that says as such, you probably won't find anything. It's not defaming in any way so I wouldn't worry about it right now. It's a low priority fact to have a citation for right now, in my opinion. OlYeller^Talktome 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per current state of the article, the continued work on its improvement, and this additional reliable source: Lubbock Online. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I see two proper articles, one trivial review, and one trivial concert announcement. I think it falls just short of establishing notability. Although a third proper source would push it over the inclusion treshold.--Sloane (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, redirect to The Stands and protect. Black Kite 18:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Ravera[edit]

sigh* I hate using AfD for mergers but several users refuse to respect this re-direct. No evidence Ravera is notable for anything other than playing with The Stands, which is what he's covered about. Less than marginal notability as a sole musician and no evidence of notability. Ask that if this closes in merge/re-direct, someone please protect the re-direct. StarM 02:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable musician, insufficient coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until the other claims in the article can be referenced. He's notable for playing in The Stands, but without reliable coverage for nothing else. A redirect helps people find the actual coverage we have. The nominator's reasoning is perfectly valid until sources arise. (Side note: To get input the size of AFD discussions on mergers discussion of those should be centralized too) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed definitely need a centralized discussion place because there are some that are contentious for various reasons and need a larger discussion. StarM 12:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject fails to meet our notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 18:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, nothing sourced, nothing to merge. (Also support for centralising merger discussions.) Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given the unfortunate language originally used in the nomination, the fact that this passed unanimously with a very strong "Keep" consensus last time around, the fact that editors this time around have unanimously opined that this article be kept, and the fact that the reason for the nomination can be shown to be untrue through clearly meeting the WP:GNG, I don't think there's any value in leaving this open any longer. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burragubba[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non Notable Street Performer. Silk Knot (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for all the reasons mentioned in the first AfD. The guy simply is notable; there is independent coverage in the press (which thinks him notable enough to write about him when he's beaten up by thugs). Worse, there is no rationale given by the nominator: the nominator says "non notable" when there were five sources for the article (and I added two more). Nominator's use of the term "Vagabond" suggests that there is something going on here--well, let's just say it, there seems to be a cultural bias here, let me put it that way. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets Wikipedia biography's notability measures, and is therefore sufficiently notable to warrant an article. No real case made by nominator for why article should be deleted?! Bruceanthro (talk)
Keep This person is known for three different things (his music, political activity, and being attacked). All this is amply referenced by reliable sources so without a fully detailed and better rationale, there's no way I could support deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets The general notability guideline so easily. The majority of the internet sources provided on him are secondary, reliable and substantially mention him. Also the article makes brilliant use of the ref tag. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to have ample material written about him for his various activities. Note that I have removed a word from the nomination - bloody poor form to comment this way on a living person - Peripitus (Talk) 11:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, along with Artis the Spoonman and the World Famous Bushman, one of a handful of contemporary street performers to generate interest and coverage in reliable sources. Poechalkdust (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A candle in the Sun[edit]

Novel fails to meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (books). Self Published book, no reliable sources could be located to establish notability. Captain-tucker (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Dear editors, is there agreement on books published on lulu? Drmies (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Drmies No, I wouldn't lump them all on the same pile. I am aware of at least a couple Lulu.com books that could easily meet notability criteria and I'd be able to find more such books I tried. The Pocket and the Pendant, The Didymus Contingency, J.C. Hutchins' Seventh Son (J.C. Hutchins novel), and the best example the books by Scott Sigler (prior to his publishing deal) are all covered extensively in the media which would yield ample references to build off. I would take into account the author (it makes sense to cover the entire bibliography of any authors we cover) and the available sources before writing off any book, self-published or not. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entry is an advert, plain and simple. No reliable sources outside the author covered the book at all [36]. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for advertising non-notable books.--Caspian blue 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Pecunia[edit]

Non-notable child actor. Not that it would matter, but she was not with Dream (band) any time near the generation of its hits. Bongo matic 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barney_&_Friends_cast#R; non-notable, but rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure why the Prod was not allowed to run its course. Non-notable. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet criteria for WP:BIO for entertainers. She's 13. Give her a few years. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article does not meet notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 18:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, article kept (non-admin closure). Jamie^☆S93 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfields School[edit]

~~Was not able to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.~~ All sources in the article in its current state are to sources directly affiliated with the article's subject. Reads like a promo-piece/PR-blurb for the organization. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Withdrawn/changed to Keep, see below. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs editing for style but these are almost always found to be notable. JJL (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, have you found any secondary sources independent of the article's subject discussing it? Cirt (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm relying on Wikipedia:SCHOOL#Indicators_of_probable_notability: "In general, tertiary degree-awarding institutions and senior secondary schools are considered notable." Although it's not policy this is the essentially uniform outcome of an AfD like this, and in my opinion that's a reasonable result. JJL (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that if zero secondary sources discuss a particular school, and the only solitary source is the organization's own website, it is deserving of an article on Wikipedia? Cirt (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no. JJL (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment google news search for someone to sift through. I'm generally opposed to deleting high school entries if there is any shred of notability. tedder (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google News search appears to contain results with hits for other schools of the same name. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ - Extreme emphasis on "weak", because this is a high school (although I personally belive that most high schools are non-notable) and independent sources are harder to come by. Perhaps this could be re-written to talk about the educational side of the school rather then all those theater programs. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Marcusmax (talk · contribs) - Have you been able to find any independent sources which significantly discuss the subject of this article? Cirt (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This may turn out to be a more contentious AfD than it would at first appear to be. The only substantive, independent information I've been able to find about this school—though I'm not seeing anything that could be called a reliable source—all deals with its connection to Scientology (as following the Applied Scholastics link in the article makes clear). Here's one such source. Deor (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that source satisfy WP:RS ? Cirt (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could dig up the actual Evening Argus article, that might, but the Web page appears to be a copyvio, if nothing else. Deor (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that article would be WP:RS. Still would be best to find coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched for "Scientology" at the Argus Web site; but the results went back only to 2006 [nothing mentioning Greenfields], and the advanced search only allows one to select years from 1996 to the present, so the article in question doesn't appear to be online. Deor (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many others: An editorial to go with the Argus article [37], a top rating from the Financial Times [38], Dianetics and the school [39], BBC table entries [40], [41], arrest of a teacher for events connected to the school [42], story on an English teacher there [43], student there wins an award [44], mentioned in a Scientology article [45]. There are also lots of tangential mentions from A_Piece_of_Blue_Sky. JJL (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contains a sixth form college. As with all such schools the page should be expanded not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@TerriersFan (talk · contribs) - Were you able to find secondary sources independent of the article's subject discussing it? Cirt (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - It is in my newly informed decision that after reviewing the evidence provided, that no reliable sources can be found to establish notability, if you need further explanation seem my talk page. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This school seems to be notable for its somewhat unique asssociation with Scientology. I can think of no other school in the UK which has such a link. There seem to be a number of secondary sources as found by JJL so it should be a straightforward matter to expand the article. Dahliarose (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (nom withdrawn) Thanks to secondary sources presented on this AfD page by JJL (talk · contribs) - thanks JJL! Cirt (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources have now been found, and nom withdrew. -Marcusmax(speak) 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwaguru Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda Puri[edit]

Good faith search in web, Google News, and Factiva come up with no evidence that the subject of this advertisement meets the notability guidelines. Bongo matic 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--in light of new evidence added to the article (though I wish it had been added via templates and in-line citations...well, one can always hope) I'm changing my vote here. Some editor did some really serious searching--perhaps having run out of bacon topics. PS, I am not voting keep because of Vishwaguru Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda Puri's good character; I am of the devil's party myself.Delete--I can find one brief thingy in the New York Post and that's it. Not notable, and it does read like an ad. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the very long name indicate some kind of inherent notability? If Schmidty comes by he's going to save this article, I just know it! I'm reserving judgement until we see if anyone can come up with more substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think he may actually be somewhat notable, at least in India. The name "Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda" seems to be frequently used; I suspect the other parts are honorifics. Looie496 (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About coverage. There is substantial coverage available in the links provided. There are pictures of the Swamiji with several European presidents, Dalai Lama and Mayors of 6 capitol cities and ample descriptions of the events organized by him. Swamijis area of activity is mostly Central Europe. Most news paper articles are not in english. For some which are, there are copyright issues, if the articles are not published by the magazines on the internet by themselves. The evidence should be analyzed with greater detail, especially the reports about World peace summits. The text is not from news agencies, but pictures are still pictures (!). It has been attempted to add similar article in the past, but they were not fixed on time to match the wikipedia policy. This time I will work with you until we can produce something that you will feel satisfied with. In reply to the comments raised, I have made the following change:

- partially reworded the text to make it more in the encyclopedic style

- added links to publications in Czech Republic

There have been multiple articles published in Austrialia, Austria, Germany, Slovenia, Slovakia and Croatia about Swamijis activities in the last 30 years (every year). He appeared on state television in nearly all of these countries in prime time news. I am still looking and waiting to get more coverage about this. In this part of the world, he is very well known. Please provide some time and more specific comments, so that I can fix what needs to be fixed.

About the titles: Vishwaguru means the Guru of the Universe and is the highest title given in Hinduism to a monk. Mahandaleshwar is in the same rank as in Catholic "cardinal". Paramhans means the highest Swan, or the leader of a monastery branch. Puri is the name of the branch. In Hinduism you have multiple branches, Puri, Giri etc.. as defined by Adi Guru Shankaracharya. Swami means Hindu monk. About the claim that this article is advertisement: All articles about people which have not died yet is advertisement. I would kindly ask to remove this flag. The wording in the article however should not be like advertisement. I agree with that. Thanks Guys!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmapuri (talk • contribs) 08:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to reproduce an article here using the {{quotation}} template. Ottre 13:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I believe the article should be retitled with the subject's name. We don't title articles with the inclusion of honorifics whether they are Dr., President, or Guru of the Universe. Even Dr. Ruth who is best known by her name including the title, is referred to by her full name per standards. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is full of puffery and basically reads like an ad for someone of questionable notability at best, and doesn't even really address what, if anything, he's actually done. I think people are just being dazzled by the long name here. In any case, delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was also considering how to change the title in to something shorter, but did not find a way. I disagree though with plain dismissal of facts, especially by people whi are really not in to yoga in similar things and not interested in the subject. Has anyone even checked the list of links provided to establish notability? I am getting a feeling of being ignored here. Atmapuri (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: well, so do I, if I may. The article still reads like an ad, and there are no more reliable sources added. The article is now loaded with "press links"--that is, links to blogs, to PDFs containing newsletters by organizations, to the occasional television appearance. Seriously: the Peace Federation? How is that a reliable source? The article needs references to reliable and independent sources giving in-depth discussion of the topic: the best source in the article is the NY Post article, which features the subject as a "dear Abby" of sorts, without providing evaluation of discussion at all. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

Bongo matic has given balloons to Atmapuri and Drmies! Balloons are meant to uplift the morale of people who are feeling ignored, and has hopefully made your day a little better. Spread good will by giving someone else who is a bit grumpy a balloon!

Spread the good feeling by adding {{subst:Balloons}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Keep I'm convinced of notability based largely on the New York Post article. This article should be retitled as Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda, and it needs some serious editing -- it needs references for the statements of fact, and the honorifics such as "His Holiness" should be removed, since we don't do that in Wikipedia. (Posted by Looie496)
Comment Interesting how many of these 'spiritual' people end up in Europe or the USA. "In recognition of his humanitarian and spiritual merits Swamiji received many thanks, awards and honouring titles from all over the world." Sounds like puff. I'll be looking into those links tomorrow. They don't look too promising so far. Being photographed with a political figure isn't notable to me, neither is visiting a place. I'll report back when less tired. Peridon (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda is a great spiritual teacher. If you want it to keep it or not it is your decision. GyanPrakas —Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The decision of whether to keep or delete the article is not a judgement on the greatness of the subject, but a determination that is based on our guidelines for notability. These require that article subjects demonstrate they are notable and have been substantially covered in reliable independent sources such as newspapers, magazines, and books. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The request for notability is not disputed. What is considered a notable reference is. It is true that not all (press) links added have a notability weight, but some do. These press links are there only to establish notability and would otherwise (except for World Peace Summits) not appear there. About looking as an add and sounding as a puff: There is not much text in the article and everybody is most welcome to edit the copy to make it more encyclopedic. And if you think about it. The Wiki page about Dalai Lama is all about advertisement for Buddhism in that sense. Nevertheless, the guy simply is there and is a large part of our lives. Specifically on notability: I honestly believe that Wiki administrators have not really looked in to the references provided with great enough depth. Additional problem here is the cultural gap, because unlike Vivekanda and Yogananda, the activties of this Swami are not concentrated on USA and consequently there is much less material which would be in english and english wise certifiable reference. Here is the short summary of things for which I believe establish a definite case of notability. Check the list of people attending the World Peace Summits every year. This is not a one time event and one picture. There is a continuous stream of support from a wide spectrum of international organization, Universities and government officials. Do not dismiss this claims lightly. It is true that this is not a book or a magazine, but nobody can put on-line such vast amount of material without being sanctioned by someone, if that would not be true. When it comes to direct "references" from books and magazines: Ok, so New York Post is no London Times or National Geographic, but that is one definite reference in USA. LA Times is another new reference. I also found Fox TV recordings of his interviews. The videos provided from the TV stations in Slovenia are from number 1 TV channel. The papers like www.vecer.si should count as the second reference. This is the nations second largest news paper in Slovenia. The magazins (7 dni, Novi tednik, Primorske novice....) are the ones in the top in Slovenia. If nothing else, adding this page in Slovenian language would have exactly 0 problems for notability. Same is true for Croatia: www.vjesnik.com and www.slobodnadalmacija.hr are the biggest papers in the country.

Swamiji is a yoga teacher (guru) and if you would check his site, you would find that are 25 countries listed with about 10 centers per country in average. There are up to 1000 people that go through each center every year. You do the math. We are talking several hundred thousands practitioners per year (!!). If that is not notable, I dont know what it is. It feels natural and normal, that at least "what is what" should be mentioned in Wiki. We can read in notability guidlines for Wiki: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."

And finally, I believe that we should support everybody who is making an effort to do something for the peace and for understanding in the world and has shown at least some positive results. Some people at least try!Atmapuri (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several citations to news media coverage have been added to the article. Please don't close this discussion until editors have a chance to review them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Several reliable sources in the article (NY Post, L.A Times, Nacional Magazine from Croatia, The Age of Australia) are enough to establish notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've looked into several of those links. Most of the ones I've looked at seem rather redolent of puffery or of the 'roller skating budgerigar' space filler. He's mentioned, he's interviewed in a very press handout way - but I haven't seen any great indication of importance in them. Reliable newspapers do need space fillers at times, and while unlike some they do not invent their fillers (usually) they do use stuff that would otherwise not make it into print. Peridon (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued: Just looked at the Austrian interview. Fairly brief and not an exactly unbiased (vegetarian) site. It contains the rather unscientific statement "Ein starkes Tier jagt das schwächere, das ist richtig. Tiere jagen Tiere. Doch der Mensch ist kein Tier, er sollte drüber stehen." (Basically: strong animals eat weaker animals. Man isn't an animal and so shouldn't.) The 'weaker' animals eat grass and similar. To follow his argument, as Man is not an animal we should not do likewise. Which leaves us with rocks.... In the ORF article, Swamiji gets one brief mention. I haven't looked into the Slovene language articles, but am puzzled by the description of him being "visible in the last part of the video about road accident". Isn't he usually visible? And what is a video about a road accident doing as a reference? Over to English language. Wisdom Magazine's article is by-lined "Kate O'Connor with Swamiji". Not an independent source, perhaps. Peridon (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People have different beliefs and who are we to judge? This is not a function of notability. Many of the links provided are there only to establish notability and would otherwise not be in the article. Finally, this is my first article I could use some help in producing something on the level of Wiki quality :) The impression I got thus far is that of extremly hard judgement of the topic, title and subject. Atmapuri (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed, people have different beliefs. But I'm afraid we are to judge the notability. I must confess that the holier the titles get (or the more fervent the evangelist or whatever), the more I look for the Rolls-Royce. (Haven't found one here yet, though.) The links that are provided to establish notability aren't really succeeding for me - as detailed above. My knowledge of Croat and Slovene is not good enough to make a sound value judgement on the references in those languages. This is actually a borderline case in my view. Note that I'm Commenting not !voting. I'm knocking down the references I consider valueless as a possible stimulus to getting something better. Photos with politicians mean nothing. Politicians will pose with almost anybody (OK, perhaps not with a Manson or a Fritzl post conviction) as they seek to widen their appeal. Visiting a place isn't notable - unless you're the first to skateboard to the top of Everest. Signing a petition isn't notable. Being a 'religious leader' isn't of itself (to me, at least) notable. India and the USA are full of them. If a subject is of value, I want it to be presented as of value. Believe me, the amount of spam and puffery we get here is incredible. (And I'm a relative newcomer!) Peridon (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline perhaps, but apart from promotional content there isn't much substantial coverage to indicate notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RinkWorks[edit]

This page has been almost entirely unreferenced in over five years of existence. The only source is a NYT article with a one sentence mention, and besides that the only news mentions I could find were a brief flurry from 9 years ago when just one section got the webmasters in trouble. This leads me to believe ethat the site falls under WP:ONEEVENT as there is virtually nothing besides trivial mentions, outside the scope of this one brief event. Furthermore, the article is in a sorry state, with only two edits since December and some issues with tone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This website may have passed its peak before Wikipedia was born, but its history is its strength. I still visit this site regularly, though not associated with it, so I'll see if I can help fix it up a bit. - Kevin Saff (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of media mentions of the site here. Yeah, a lot in 1998, but the web was still small in '98. It's significant that the site has outlasted a number of other sites from that era, several of which are probably named on Wikipedia. Also, the site is one of very few places to serve high quality menu-based choose-your-own-adventure games. I strongly object to the idea that this site is a one-hit wonder. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the media mentions section of their website, but only a couple seemed to have any real meat on them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that New Hampshire Business Review article? It's not just a shoutout like several others, but actually a significant article with interview conducted in 2005 at least five years after the site peaked. May we all be so lucky... Anyway, lots of juicy info in that article, such as Bank of America threatening to sue them. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, notice that RinkWorks' Dialectizer was still quite popular when Google added its humorous translations into bork bork, Elmer Fudd, Leet-speak, Pig latin, etc. All of those were in the Dialectizer. There is probably no way to conclusively prove that RinkWorks inspired those Google features, but the fact is it was the most popular such humorous translator -- and probably the only one with those exact languages -- on the web when Google added those features. I submit that any website which inspires a google feature is notable. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Metafilter link announcing this google feature on June 27, 2001. One of the commenters mentions RinkWorks admin Samuel Stoddard and the Dialectizer. No other websites are mentioned. I'm going to poke around some more, problem is there probably won't be any print articles about this and a lot of websites have died in 8 years. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been significantly improved from time of proposed deletion. - Fastily (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'm still not sold. There were some tone issues, a source to a metafilter post by a singular user (hardly an RS), and still most of the sources are primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Right now, the article looks even worse--it seems to be a collection of sample jokes. I don't see any notability established by these references at all. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes, I did look through the list of "Rinkwork articles," and could not find anything that offered in-depth discussion. Mere mention is not enough. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable, non-trivial sources. -- samj _in ^out 16:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Vaisnava Association[edit]

Non notable non-registered indian company? Wikidās ॐ 23:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL a different organization to Visva Vaishnava Raja Sabha (that is possibly notable or historic). Wikidās ॐ 23:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 non notability §hawn poo 04:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started this article since there were several red links to it at the home. However, it does seem that the "World Vaisnava Association" isn't really notable. I would not object to it being deleted. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lots more results turn up if you search under an alternative spelling: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:20, 8 March 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 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 non notability. Organization does exist, but it is not notable. Article can be recreated in the future if this organization becomes notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Purmei MRT Station[edit]

Completely speculative and unsourced. WP is not a crystal ball - oahiyeel ^talk 17:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure speculation about a possible transit station. As the article itself says, "the location is unknown." •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article an all others: Sungei Kadut MRT Station, Marina South MRT Station, Canberra MRT Station. These stations are not confirmed. The Soon 07:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Eulogies (band). Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here Anonymous[edit]

Tried speedy but was stopped by another editor. This is a non-notable future release of an album. Clearly doesn't meet WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC criteria. Cerejota (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace. Minimal coverage at present. Move to userspace until significant coverage is found.--Michig (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too soon for article. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 21:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is even better than userfy, there's already reviews out there: [46] or [47] Additional sources can be found plenty: [48] And Apr 7 is not that far away as someone might think... --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second one above is a press release, not a review. I couldn't find any other significant coverage of the album in the other Google results.--Michig (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what little sourced info there is into the parent article, and redirect this one, as a plausible search term, to Eulogies (band). There is not enough significant coverage reliable, third-party, sources to warrant a stand alone article per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL at this time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:33, 8 March 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 00:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but after deleting most of the material. This topic is not notable. I also think that the (self-published) sources from the band's own site are not sufficient to justify including the material. However, there is a single third-party source I found: [49]. I was unable to find any more sources. I would recommend reducing this article to a single sentence and then merging. Cazort (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bosch! erm, Merge to the band article, no significant coverage thus far. pablo_hablo. 00:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avner Strauss[edit]

Subject claims to be "renowned" but all relevant web hits appear to be self-published. Unable to find multiple third-party reliable sources to indicate notability. Article appears to be written by subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Appears to meet the slim standards of WP:MUSIC; recognized by Israeli media.[50] THF (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, documented by Mooma, the most important encyclopedia of Israeli music. Released two albums through Hed Arzi and one album through Phonokol - both of them are major mainstream labels in Israel. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup. I found sources, 11 articles, all in the Jerusalem Post: [51] I would prefer sources from more than just a single media outlet, but given the fact that (a) those articles cover him in some detail, and (b) they span a broad time span, from 1989-2005, I would say this person ought to be included. I am also finding a few tangential sources that lend credibility to some of the statements. For example, this photograph attributed to him: [52] seems to resonate with his statements about being interested in whistles. That said, material that is solely referenced in self-published sources, and un-backed-up POV language like "renowned" needs to be removed. Cazort (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ClipX[edit]

Non notable software Shawnpoo (talk) 18:16, 7 March 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 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not clear to me whether this is or is not notable. Google search gives almost a million hits, but from a perusal through these results, I couldn't find any hits that looked like obvious reliable sources. It should be noted that the CNET page linked in the article allows anyone to upload software, so I'm not convinced the unsigned editor's review would count as independent. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Here is another review. Ray^Talk 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Priyaramasamy[edit]

I am unable to verify any of these claims via Google or Google books. RenegadeMonster (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also PriyaRamasamy, which I am going to redirect. RenegadeMonster (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even no evidence of notability, I'm having trouble even proving that this person actually exists. Ghits are pretty bare on the writer, and the publisher seems to be pretty non-notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Someguy. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO by a long way. FingersOnRoids♫ 21:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University_of_Minnesota#Media. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Republic[edit]

Non-notable student newspaper TM 21:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University_of_Minnesota#Media where the subject is already adequately discussed, per Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Sub-articles. Not finding independent reliable source coverage or evidence of notability to support an independent article. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:28, 7 March 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, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main newspaper at a major university is likely to be notable, but not small independent ones such as this. DGG (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable student paper. JamesBurns (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge to University of Minnesota if there is any additional information, but it's already covered there). Aubergine (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K. V. Dhanasekar[edit]

I am unable to verify these claims via google, google books or google news. RenegadeMonster (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —RenegadeMonster (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:BLP §hawn poo 04:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:V is a problem, but what is the BLP concern ? I don't see any. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:V. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:23, 10 March 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, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in line with the above. Can't confirm that this guy exists (without knowing his full name, trying to find out about him is pretty difficult). The publisher mentioned in the article also seems fairly non-notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FMX (foot motocross)[edit]

Long-term unsourced with no evidence of notability. I did some quick checking, but I didn't find any sources online that corroborate the existence of the sport that aren't derived from Wikipedia. Mintrick (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how is this different than Parkour? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability may OK. Junk Police (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, you need to indicate a reason why it should be kept. Mintrick (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? Notability requires reliable sources, where are they? Mintrick (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking through first 30 non-Wikipedia-mirror Google hits makes it look that this isn't close to being notable. Just something a few people made up and posted videos of on the internet. A lot of the hits aren't even about foot-motocross, but are just false hits. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Rather humorous WP:Neologism. I was unable to find any reliable sources on this. In fact, most of the (meager) google hits for "foot motocross" are actually in reference to Bicycle Motocross, as a "10 foot motocross" ramp. Cazort (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. leaning delete, but really NC. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Skilbeck[edit]

Per wp:blp. The biography of living person guideline states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". I could find no sources on this person. The only editor to the article is the subject. A clear violation of wp:coi. Adam in MO Talk 08:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check out this [53] and skillzy's user page. Seems like a clear conflict of interest problem to me.--Adam in MO Talk 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There are absolutely issues with the references, some of which don't mention Skilbeck at all, and some of which are links to other Wikipedia articles, which aren't sources (and also don't mention Skilbeck). However, the first few references do mention him, and he is clearly notable within his fields of journalism (author of two books) and biking (founder and president of a group known within the sport). Also apparently a photographer. I also note strongly that WP:COI is not a reason for deletion of an article. Just because an article's author is (or is close to) its subject doesn't mean the subject doesn't qualify for inclusion. We should address that issue separately, and the article is tagged appropriately for this. Frank | talk 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wrote Paul Skilbeck's original wiki page, but since there was a lot of techinical information(places, times, dates, exact titles of books, etc.) I asked him to check the page and make sure that I got everything right. I didn't think that was a violation of the Wiki guidelines, but if it was I apologize. bhilden

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notably lacks any evidence of notability. Any one of the acts attributed to him - writing two books, founding a (smallish) club, being a photographer - does not prove notability. It needs much better sources to show general notability. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Yes, the article is bad, but I'm finding sources. This man is very often quoted in outlets like the NY times: [54], I am seeing him referred to as a "mountain biking expert" and "longtime cycle journalist". He's also mentioned frequently in association with Race Across America. Question: some of these articles refer to bowling and (?)cricket. Same person? If so this would further demonstrate some notability in multiple areas, if not, they can be ignored. I think this man may be notable though. Cazort (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs quite a hefty copyedit, but the notability seems clear to me from the sources listed above and in the article. The CoI is no reason to delete, but the CoI should still stay until someone independent has cleaned up the article. --Ged UK 21:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP. 11 days after nomination and the article is still a mess, no assertion of notability. As Bearian noted, these things listed do not establish notability. Currently appears that the subject fails WP:BIO. ₳dam Zel 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP states to remove controversial and unsourced material, not to delete the article. I found far more sources than are currently given in the article. We should be discussing whether these sources are or are not sufficient to establish notability. I am not 100% persuaded one way or the other but I am leaning towards a keep and I would appreciate feedback from others on what they think of the sources I found. Cazort (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concert Guy[edit]

Music promotion company with no evidence of notability as defined in WP criteria (WP:N]). Article cites no references. The only online information I can find about this organization is its own myspace webpage and related pages on similar websites. (Maybe this music promoter will be notable some day, but it's not there yet.) An earlier version of the article (different title) was speedied. This one was prodded; the creator removed the prod template but did not address the notability issue, so here we are at AfD. Orlady (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notable at the local level, if at all. §FreeRangeFrog 00:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misha Quint[edit]

POV pushing, autobiographical, not notable musician, fails notability, wp:music, wp:band, nor referenced, no reliable sources, c.o.i. Troyster87 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin. Troyster87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked and is alleged to be a banned user, per his talk page. Because this was discovered after Starblind's comment below, the nomination is not eligible for speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incredibly puffy COI article for a musician who doesn't meet our music guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator's note. Checking if anything in this article is salvageable, as there appears to be copyright infringement from http://www.mishaquint.com/mqbio.htm. —C.Fred (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this cellist is just as notable as most of the other cellists on the List of Cellists page on Wikipedia. Is there something about the tone that you would like me to change? An example of another cellist is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuill_Bailey or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara_Nelsova . Please tell me what I could improve before deleting it. What exactly are your "music guidelines"?

Thanks for your input. PS: I have sent OTRS the permission I have from http://www.mishaquint.com/ to use the material there. {{OTRS Pending}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewcellist (talk • contribs) 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, based on criterion #9 from WP:MUSIC: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." The International Competition in Prague may qualify. His formation of the InterHarmony festivals may also qualify. I'd like to see a little more development on the article before passing judgment—and it needs a rewrite regardless. If independent sources turn up about the award and/or the festival, that's a good sign to keep. If there's no independent coverage, I'm for revisiting this issue in about a month. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your consideration. I will continue to rewrite. --Llewcellist (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I rewrote the article recently so that it is not exactly as the text I am gaining permission to use and tried to make it more indifferent and encyclopedic. I also added a new source which is an article from a performance with the most famous/significant orchestra in Brasilia which proves that Quint has worked with Levin, one of the famous conductors listed. Please offer any other advice as to sources needed and etc--72.23.174.105 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not for cleanup; this Google News search turns up a number of articles (from the Philadelphia Inquirer, NYT, etc.) that suggest there's plenty of notability. Then there's the matter of the nominator being blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeteering, and it was suggested elsewhere (can't remember where) that the nom was an AfD troll. Doesn't matter; this cellist is notable enough, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested on his talk page. The nominator is blocked indefinitely and alleged to be a banned user. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to History of electrical engineering. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of electricity and radio[edit]

Material is contained in History of electricity and History of radio. This article is unlikely to be expanded as it's title attempt to combine two complex well documented topics. Armstrong1113149 (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of electrical engineering. It looks like someone already merged most of this information into the Electrical engineering article -- compare the first paragraph of this article to the first paragraph of the History section. Also look at History of electrical engineering. Granted, that article has changed and been rephrased over the years, but most of the information is pretty similar. Seems to me that this article is redundant and has gone unmaintained for quite some time now. Matt (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Matt. Majoreditor (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly researched little POV essay: "However it was not until the nineteenth century that research into the subject started to intensify." Lots of important electrical research was done in the 18th century. Researchers learned to generate enough current from a bank of Leyden jars to melt wire, established that positiva and negative electricity are more or less of one fluid, that there are conductors and insulators of different quality, that electricity travels too fast to easily measure, and a number of important discoveries. Duplicates material in better articles, and not a useful redirect term. Edison (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Matt suggests. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this content fork to comply with GFDL attribution requirements. It is pretty clear that History of electrical engineering (currently a much better article) was originally derived from this article. DHowell (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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