Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 March 15 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy close. No valid deletion reason given; violation of WP:POINT. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lambert[edit]

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

Only reason I'm doing this is because I'm mad at some annoying person is nominating all their least favorite contestants and say they are not "significant" even though every American Idol contestant while on the show had a page.

  • Keep Sorry, you've lost me. You've nominated this article for deletion because you're annoyed about somebody else's editing behaviour, but you provide a rationale in your nomination for why this article should be kept? It appears that current finalists in this show get an article, and former finalists get their articles redirected to the article about the appropriate series unless they prove notable in their own right post-show. This seems sensible. Do you have a more valid reason for your nomination? Karenjc 17:55, 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. It's been 12 hours and no one, not even the actual initiator of this AfD, has given any reason to delete. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stinkfoot, a Comic Opera[edit]

Stinkfoot, a Comic Opera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completion of incomplete nomination. No rationale given by nominator.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. No suggestion of any reason for deletion. Clearly notable given reviews quoted in the article. Don't see any point continuing this AFD. JulesH (talk) 09:27, 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. No predjudice to recreation is more substantial RS are found Fritzpoll (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph J. Greenberg[edit]

Joseph J. Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Non-Notable. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I've found a NYT obituary ([1]) which confers some degree of notability, but probably not enough for an article by itself. Given dates in the article, this is clearly a different person to the sculptor Joseph J. Greenberg (also from Philadelphia), who does appear to be notable ([2] [3]). JulesH (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, I was the IP user who removed the speedy tag. Apparently, per the message I got from the prod'er, IP users such as myself are not allowed to do this. (As a side note, if someone will kindly post on my talk page the guideline that indicates this, I will stop).
    I did so because there appears to be some notability for the subject as evidenced by, for examples, serving as president of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and having a school named for him. My rationale for removing the speedy tag was based purely on this - I felt it necessary to get community approval for the deletion. I have no agenda on this matter and no ties to the subject or the prod'er.74.69.39.11 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, anyone but the article creator is allowed to remove a speedy deletion tag on an article. However, if the tagger has solid grounds to believe the IP and the article creator are the same person, a sockpuppetry case may be initiated. But there is quite simply no reason to believe that is the case here, nor did the person who gave you the warning expressed any concerns about that. So the warning you received was out of line. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Full Times obits are enough to make someone notable, but this was 42 words long only.DGG (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - marginal notability; with more references provided, I could be convinced to change to 'Keep', but as it is I don't think he quite passes the notability test. It's a borderline case, though. Robofish (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really weak keep due to 42-word Times obit, common name, has a school named after him: maybe notable. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Though he had an elementary school named after him (as a longtime member of the Board of Public Education who seemed to have contributed greatly to his community this isn't surprising), he still doesn't meet the notability guidelines for people WP:Notability_(people) or the more general guidelines for notability WP:Notability. Teleomatic (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply delete' Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having a school named after someone is not necessarily an indication of notability for that person. I went to a grade school that was named after the priest of the local Roman Catholic parish, a man who was virtually unknown outside the neighbourhood.

    I can also say something about a middle school, in the same area, that was named after someone who became notable only long after that school was named after him, and his claim of notability is that he was the father of the current mayor of Laval, Quebec. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all of the pieces together suggest notability in his time....and notability is timeless. Times obit is the clincher. 7triton7 (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - minor local figure fails any test of notability. 42 words in the NYT is not substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 18 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuula Olin[edit]

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

Contested prod. Freelance writer with no assertion of notability. The article creator is apparently the subject's husband. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The subject of this article has not written any notable books. She hasn't received any notable awards either, so she fails WP:CREATIVE. A Google News Archive search for sources returns nothing to verify the notability of this individual. Cunard (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A month ago I came to the same conclusion [4]. Samulili (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unable to find any sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unable to find any sources to establish notability -- May be in the future if he/she establishes some records to consider. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 17:06, 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 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complicity (album)[edit]

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

Complicity has not been confirmed as the title of Sum 41's next album, by any official or third-party sources. Even if it were, no information is known about the album, and it is as of now not notable and unverifiable. Timmeh! 23:38, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta-Mongolia relations[edit]

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

Yet again, another one of Plumoyr's series of international relations between two seemingly random countries, this time between two countries that don't have a resident ambassador in the other country (i.e. Malta in Mongolia and vice versa). As such, I doubt it has much - if any - notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Although I was able to find sources that mentioned Malta-Mongolia relations, I was able to find no independent sources as per WP:NOTE, and as such, I doubt its notability. Jd027talk 16:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At best this info should be included in either Malta's or Mongolia's page, but there's no point having this around when nothing significant has happened between these two countries. Matt (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others above. Yilloslime TC 21:43, 18 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 kept and moved to Vietnam War in film based on consensus. Erik says it best: it's best to treat this as a cinematically-related topic, going with the "in film" naming norms. I'll do what I can to start some improvements, by cleaning up and adding some sources. (Non-admin closure). Jamie☆S93 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War film[edit]

Vietnam War film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be completely unreferenced original research ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Redirect to War film. Though I suspect a decent article could be built on the subjetc given sufficient time and effort (covering notable examples of the subgenre, it's history, common themes, etc...) this isn't really it. Artw (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to either Vietnam_War#Popular_culture or [War_film#1960s]].--Lenticel (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand A quick check on Google scholar shows there are several thousand sources available, including some entire books on the specific subject. In fact, [Whttp://www.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3AVietnam+War%2C+1961-1975+Motion+pictures+and+the+war.&fq=dt%3Abks+%3E+ln%3Aeng&qt=facet_ln%3A WorldCat] shows over a hundred under the most obvious subject heading. If the original ed. cannot be gotten to finish the article, there's enough of a start for others. As a start, see Dittmar, Linda, and Gene Michaud. From Hanoi to Hollywood: The Vietnam War in American Film. New Brunswick [u.a.]: Rutgers Univ. Press, 2000; Adair, Gilbert. Vietnam on Film: From the Green Berets to Apocalypse Now. New York: Proteus, 1981. etc. etc. Why do people nominate or argue for deletion without even the most rudimentary of checks? DGG (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the stub has tremendous potential to grow. DGG has it 100% correct per WP:BEFORE. No need to merge. Allow it to grow and be pleasently surprised at the results. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and maybe move to Vietnam War in film. As DGG says, there are entire books about the subject. The article isn't in great shape, but it's a start. Zagalejo^^^ 04:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zagalejo. I would be surprised if this couldn't be expanded. The subject is notable, lots of sources available. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move to Vietnam War in film and expand. If expanded to more than one paragraph and sourced, this could actually have the makings of a good article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is already a list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction_based_on_the_Vietnam_War and I see list of World War 2 movies. Perhaps rename it to List of films featuring the Vietnam War. Dream Focus 01:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to War film. The article is a month old and is still an unreferenced single paragraph stub with an ungrammatical name (it should be Vietnam War films or something similar). If anyone takes an interest in this topic it can be easily split out into a proper article. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & redirect: At present article is obsolete to Vietnam War#Popular culture. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Vietnam War in film. It seems more valid to treat it as a cinematic topic rather than an actual sub-genre, as the article title and body indicates. I recommend adding a small "Further reading" section to reflect its notability more obviously and to hopefully give visitors to the article a chance to use the sources to expand the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Vietnam War in film per everyone above.Nrswanson (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources on which to develope this article are abundant, claiming deletion or redirect on the the ground that not much work has been done till now doesn't strike me as a convincing argument.--Aldux (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a classic case of a worthwile subject being nominated for deletion because it fails to meet Wikipedia's quality standards at the first attempt. Improvement is the way to go with this one, not deletion. I also support renaming to Vietnam War in film. SpinningSpark 19:12, 18 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 per WP:SNOW. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just David[edit]

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

Unnotable fictional novelbook. Fails WP:BK. No demonstrable notability established from reliable, third-party sources. Failed PROD with prod removed by original article creator operating under a new account. Creator was COI account that made the article to promote their audio book recordings. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Linguistic pedantry: "Novel" by itself is a fictional work. "Fictional novel" would be a novel that only exists in another work of fiction. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:P I meant to say book. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It looks like this novel has been cited in two other books (Look for the "citations" header here), and it looks like the book has recently been reprinted in 2004, 2007, and 2008. [5]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this book was notable 80 years ago, it's still notable today. WP:NTEMP. See [6] and this NY Times review, although it still might be appropriate to merge with an article on the author. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, was it notable 80 years ago? I saw those listings when I checked before I AfDed, but most don't seem to make much sense. The ones that are clear, though, seem to just be noting that she wrote it in an article about her, rather than giving the book itself significant coverage. Most of those aren't viewable, though, so hard to say for sure. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The review in the NYT, available as PDF, is hilarious. I can't get to all the other ones either, but what I can see, for instance, is that the Chicago Tribune says "Actually Eleanor Porter was the author of many popular novels, including "Just David,..." so that should count for something. Then the LA Times, in 1930, "Best-Sellers Get Dusty"--in all there really is enough. What the article needs is an enthusiast, not deletion (with all due respect, of course). Drmies (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, if you can find more sources to establish notability, per WP:BK of course, that's great. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Linguist. It may well be that a merger is in order, but that's not for here. Disappointed, I can report that the MLA database offers nothing. JSTOR led me to four articles from The English Journal and The School Review from 1919 to 1937, all investigating reading preferences of junior high students, and Just David apparently was popular enough to be mentioned in all four. Perhaps merging is the better call here, with a redirect--but let's leave that for later. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to make note that the "Librivox audiobook recording" link that was previously listed in the external links is a recording that I am not affiliated with in any way. It is true that I am working on an audio version of my own, but once this was brought to my attention as taboo on Wikipedia I have refrained from any mention of it at all. (I have no personal association with Librivox at all). If the deletion of the link was in reference to the before mentioned "self promotion" - would it be fair to add the link back in? (Lindyhophannah)
The one that was deleted was your own link. Other than that, audiobook editions usually are not included in a book's publication history. There was a discussion about adding Librivox links to article, but consensus did not agree to their usefulness from what I can find. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Collectionian, when you have a moment, have another look at the article. I've milked JSTOR for all it's worth. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With refs added it meets notability. Beforehand, it was unclear if it passed #5 of WP:BK. COI is just something to keep an eye on. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the new sourcing indicates that the author is so historically significant that all of her works are instantly notable. The opposite seems true, looking at her own article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try again. The new sourcing meets general notability guidelines, which supersedes the book guidelines. #5 of WP:BK was close beforehand but now it doesn't matter. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Bestselling novel of the time with a very large amount of independant sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Large amount? 3 articles from the The English Journal, an unnotable magazine and one from the The School Review that purely note novels children were reading, not giving the novel significant coverage. The two possibly "significant" entries, from The New York Times and Los Angeles Time are missing very basic data, including the authors, and only the NYT purports to be a review. The other is simply noting former best sellers. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I doubt that the New York Times review has an author at all (this is not uncommon for reviews from days of yore), but I'll see if a copy from Interlibrary Loan has more information than the PDF offered by the paper's archive. Sorry, Interlibrary Loan is closed on Saturday night. I'll get that information as soon as I can; you may know that old LA Times articles are pay-per-view, and they are not accessible before 1986 through my library. "Former best seller" at least suggests it was a best seller, as consequent sources that are now brought into the article have established: it was the number 3 best-selling work of fiction in 1916.

And surely you are not suggesting that The English Journal is unnotable (the punctuation is unclear)--because it has no WP article? That's precisely why I redlinked it; WP should have an article on it, since it's the journal of the National Council of Teachers of English, and has been around since 1911.

In general, a bit of patience would be nice here: it is not at all easy to find this kind of information online, and that especially includes "significant coverage," which was often, in this genre, provided by monthlies and ladies journals, which aren't usually indexed online. That this was the third-best seller of 1916 and apparently read by a large number of American schoolchildren for a decade or two should be enough for now, I think. Drmies (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you check WP:BK you will see that sales figures are not an notability factor, nor are number of readers. Indeed, sales figures was recently again rejected as a possible notability factor because they are very easily manipulated. As with most notability standards, the core requirement is "significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources." While much of what's been added is "interesting" there has yet to be any real significant coverage beyond a single review. As such, it could be, at best, merged to its author's article. And no one is being "impatient"; AfDs are open 5-7 days. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Impatience" referred to, for instance, your disparaging NYT and LAT references because there's no author or page mentioned--as if that would delegitimatize them. I know how long AfDs run. Drmies (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't impatience, its questioning the actual quality of the sources if one can't provide that basic information (i.e. obviously coming from a database rather than the original and wondering why the database is lacking basic details). Never said they weren't RS, just spartan and not speaking to notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I did check WP:BK, where I found, under Wikipedia:BK#Non-contemporary_books, "We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature." Well, for now I can't prove that it has been widely cited or written about, though Google Books gives me good hope. But Linguist and I have proved that it has been recently reprinted, and it did enjoy great fame (and suffer great disapproval). Its place in literature is s different matter, of course. But these four items are exclusive, and two and possibly three out of four is good enough, common sense suggests. Drmies (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Keep The book is numerously quoted and referred by other books especially regarding "history of American children's book"[7] and teaching elementary students, and "Children's English" and "Regional American Engish" and others.[8][9] I can see many third references from Google books. If the book was not notable, it would not be sold in Amazon with more than 25 reviews (this is not a measure to decide its notability in Wiki, but is a way to see its popularity) The book was mentioned in "Encycloedias"[10][11]. You think the notability of the book and author is withered and all gone in present, well, how can you explained books published in 2000s quoting the book[12][13]? This RFA nomination is by far the most absurd one in my experience, so I recommend the nominator withdraw her position.--Caspian blue 05:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caspian, thanks for the references. I seem to be unable to find a way to bring that Children's Encyclopedia into the article because it's been removed--perhaps you're better at it than I. I hope that other reference is allowed to stand. Drmies (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE to nom. Next time you want to comment on writing style, don't do it by the entire restoration of an earlier version: you managed to delete three sources in the process. Make editorial changes, instead of strongarming your way around. I'll be glad to read the Manual of Style as you interpret it, but I don't think you are allowed to make your point this way. Drmies (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you were the one who restored an earlier version when you hit an edit conflict, instead of just incorporating your new material. Please read your own advice. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! As soon as you stop removing sources from the article, which you've done a couple of times now. The last one to go is The Continuum Encyclopedia of Children's Literature. Why? And I do note that in this diff you reduce the number of references from 14 to 11. Why on earth would you want to delete a reference to the novel as a "pleasant story" (which means a genre here) from the American Library Annual? Yes, I dropped another one later, by accident, which I've restored--"incorporating content" is difficult for me because you insist on compressing the references, for which I find no rationale in Citation_templates. Drmies (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already replied on my talk page. References that aren't relevant to the topic don't need to be in the article. The statements those references were sourcing were not relevant and were removed, so the sources went with them. As for that edit summary, its already been explained that you inappropriately reverted to an earlier version when you hit an edit conflict instead of just incorporating your new edits. Even if you feel it is difficult, that is the appropriate way to handle an edit conflict, not just reverting to the original version, except in cases of vandalism, which this obviously was not. As for compressing the references, its for basic article readability and cleanliness. And, BTW, you were the one who removed that reference to "a pleasant story"[14] not me, so please do not make incorrect statements. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Sorry, you're right--I accidentally removed that one, hoping to restore something from earlier after you had removed (between here) and here, under the guise of "not the best of writing,"

BTW, Nice use of the passive, "The statements those references were sourcing were not relevant and were removed, so the sources went with them." Yes, they were removed, by you, based on an incomplete or incorrect reading of the source, which you claim discussed another novel; it didn't--it compared the sales numbers for the two, which were unusually high, apparently. To the passer-by, it's here, listed above as "Chronicle and Comment." You know, "incorporating" is a lot easier if editors for reasons not found in Citation templates compress templates, or if someone who proposed an article for AfD doesn't feel the need to "work" on the article continuously. I mean, you nominated it, right? With good reason? Then why not let someone else mess around with it, even someone who cain't write, if it's going to be gone in a couple of days? You've made 13 edits in the past few hours--why? And why would such edits remove sources? Why not just let your AfD run its course, and let illiterates like me just mess up the article more? Have you no faith in the reader? Drmies (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, I don't. The rescue people, like those below, don't look at any of that, they just go "I see 10 references" and don't check them themselves. Also, you are the one who indicated the sources were only for statements about another book. Also, just because I AfDed the article doesn't mean I'm banned from editing it or working at improving it. I frequently edit articles I AfD during the process to correct mistaken attempts at claiming notability, fix wording, or even to add sources/content (am I not the one who put in a real plot summary). Just because I believe it should be deleted doesn't mean I'll just let it be badly "helped" during the discussion process. There are other guidelines and policies in place as well that govern article quality, even ones up for AfD. And since this obviously isn't a hoax book or a completely unredeemable topic, no reason not to continue working on it. I'll also, again, remind you of WP:AGF which you seem to not be doing, while writing in a seemingly polite way.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think good faith is not really an issue here, or bad faith, considering the removal of those three references. I simply wanted to know why you did that, and I was puzzled by them in the light of your earlier actions: you wrote an excellent plot summary, on the fly, which greatly improved the article, and I was very happy you did because I hate writing them (and I really mean that: that was excellent--I wish I had that capability). But no, I am not the one who indicated something about sources being about another book; the Publishers' Weekly reference confirms what The Bookman had also--this was a bestseller like Seventeen, and that it was a bestseller was important, given that one critic in The Bookman made a big deal out of it being a bestseller while being cornmeal porridge, I mean sentimentalist female fiction. In other words, it's more important than just sales numbers--the book plays a {small) part in an ongoing American debate about popularity and literary quality, which I hinted at but which you removed. For instance, the recent reference, in that book on "orphan fiction," that critic couldn't make that argument if Just David had been just another children's book--no, it's a children's book that sold as well, all over America, as an adult's book, and that's noteworthy. See, I don't have Reynolds's Beneath the American Renaissance or any such title here at hand, so I can't fully add things about popular culture and taste in the article yet--but all-too quick removals (and I'm not even saying that in none of those removals you weren't justified!) make that work a lot harder, and frequent edits by another render a sandbox superfluous. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. common sense indicates you aren't going to find as many reviews for something that old, as you could for something newer. Not every major publication has its entire history online and searchable after all. It has been mentioned in enough places to indicate it was a bestseller of its time. Dream Focus 12:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kudos to Drmies for adding so many sources to the article. Edward321 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Dream Focus and LinguistAtLarge --SkyWalker (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per sourcing introduced and Dream Focus' observation. Once all old newspapers are searchable online we can revisit this but for now we go with what we can see. -- Banjeboi 17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no problem with the article or the sourcing. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Best-sellers are notable, and this was documented as such by a RS. New editions were published in 2004 and 1985, & now available as an e-book--further confirmation of lasting importance. The author is the author of Pollyanna so it is likely that all her major childrens books will be notable. DGG (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, I can't find publication info for those years (not in the LoC or WorldCat--though I did find a Chinese and a Russian translation). Can you enlighten me? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I think anyone would agree that it's notability is clear now. Artw (talk) 03:05, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Blazey A.F.C.[edit]

St Blazey A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Club in the 11th step of the English football league system, fails agreed notability criteria. Stifle (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 redirect to Donald Pinkel. Nomination withdrawn. Copyvio deleted. Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Pinkel, M.D.[edit]

Donald Pinkel, M.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was already speedied twice on its proper title (Donald Pinkel), but G4 doesn't apply since it now contains a source link to his employer. There are no independent reliable sources to build a biography with. (Articles can't be based solely on sources that are related to the subject because they can't reliably establish notability) Delete - Mgm|(talk) 20:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Mgm|(talk) 20:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If this is a reliable independent source, he easily meets notability requirements. Now that I take a second look, it appears the text was lifted from that article, but that can be fixed with editing. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable [15]; easy to find via gsearch on his name publications that'd meet WP:PROF, for example ([16], [17]). Nom. should've searched first. Should rd to Donald Pinkel. JJL (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the nominator's defense, it would be easy to propose deletion for an article that has already been speedied twice. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep and rename to Donald Pinkel, because, damn.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The article is now at Donald Pinkel. I'm not sure if Donald Pinkel, M.D. should be deleted as a copyvio of this or this or if it should be left as a redirect. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:35, 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. MBisanz talk 09:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Attanasii[edit]

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

This article has previously been killed here and on the Italian WP. Author is not notable. sinneed (talk) 15:16, 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, Jamie☆S93 20:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Anything that happens on the Italian Wikipedia is irrelevant to this deletion discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, Linguist is right. Second, there are no hits for this person on Google News, Google Books, or, worst of all, the MLA. Not notable! Drmies (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a cursory Google search indicates the subject is not notable — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

The author is on google books:


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.187.20.202 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I didn't realize that about the IT wiki. I tend to mine the other language wiki's for potential sources, and thought it merited a mention. I do understand each wiki has different rules. I appreciate the feedback and struck the note for clarity. All the best.sinneed (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure--I'm glad you brought this to AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's just fine to look at other wikis for sources etc. What I was referring to is policy. If the itwiki policy caused the article to be deleted there, that doesn't mean that enwiki policy would mean it has to be deleted here. See also WP:NOTDE. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 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 Exploding animal. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding_snake[edit]

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

Meme is now obsolete, so I am hoping we can be sober about this article and agree that it is unencyclopedic and non-notable. Ori.livneh (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete please. This is not notable, however much internet buzz there is or may have been. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to exploding animal. I see no evidence it is/was or ever attempted to be a meme. This course of action would enlarge our coverage of exploding animals and its perfectly verifiable and documented in multiple sources (thus meeting WP:GNG). Exactly what other guidelines did you think applied here? - Mgm|(talk) 20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it's not certain whether the snake actually exploded. Also,Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. There are guidelines for using news coverage as a criterion for notability, and they are clear about cases like this. Coverage was trivial and superficial and motivated by an eye-popping photo, not any inherent interest associated with the story. Ori.livneh (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge to exploding animal. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to exploding animal sounds like the most reasonable course of action. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This story received widespread media attention [18], and continued to be mentioned in the news for months after the incident happened. (For example, see this Sept 2006 National Geographic update.) "Exploding snake" isn't a great title, though, so maybe the article should be renamed. (I disagree with merging this to Exploding animal - that article seems like an OR mishmash of various phenomena. None of the sources discuss exploding animals in general.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response Look, when you cite the fact that this story received widespread media attention, it should be noted what kind of attention that was. It was not on front pages. Op-ed pieces did not discuss its implications. Analysts did not debate it. It was syndicated not for the relevance or interest of the story (which is anyway not known -- see my comment below) but because it was an eye-catching photo that helps sell newspapers. Please be wise about this. Ori.livneh (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article gives a good overview of the implications of the find, and the speculation over what exactly happened. This might be a good source too, but I can't immediately access it. The shock value was a big reason why the story spread, but the incident did generate some serious thinking about the changing ecosystem in the Everglades. Zagalejo^^^ 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to also pose the question of what the hell "exploding snake" is. The text of the article speaks of "one documented case of exploding snake", making it sound like some kind of recognized cognition, when it is no such thing. Also, note that it is not even known whether the snake actually exploded (see Snopes link in the article). It's possible the snake was simply eviscerated by a human. I would fix the phrasing and add facts if I had any idea what about what thing this article was. Ori.livneh (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your assessment of the title, I had never heard of this incident before so when I saw the title I had no idea what it was talking about, if this article stays then it should probably be renamed. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title was probably chosen to make the article fit within the "exploding series" (exploding whale, exploding sheep, exploding toad, etc). I agree that it's not an appropriate title, for the same reasons you mentioned. Something like 2005 alligator-python incident might be a little better (though that's still not great.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the simple reason that the last AfD decided that the topic was notable, and notability is not temporary. And if you're not going to go for that, then yes, merge it into exploding animals. Matt (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A 13 foot snake tried to eat a 6 foot gator and died, was then found burst open and missing its head. Cartoonist B. Kliban gave us the rule of thumb: "Never eat anything bigger than your head." "Exploding" is likely an exaggeration of a dead animal decomposing, swelling, then the gasses being released when the rotting flesh loses its integrity, followed by some person or other animal dragging away the head. This hardly merits the term "explosion." This is a one-off weird water-cooler story. Wikipedia is not and should not become a compendium of every freak occurance that got a little news coverage. See the essay Wikipedia:News articles as well as WP:NOT#NEWS. Edison (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to exploding animal per above. There are three good cites in the stub. Once notable, always notable. AfD is not for mergers. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 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 Procedural keep. I would normally close this as redirect to district but there are quite a few other articles that should be redirected as well, propose a merge/redirect on the district talk. BJTalk 08:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Peacock Elementary School[edit]

Dorothy Peacock Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Elementary School appears to be non-notable. I tried to redirect it to the related school district's page, but I was reverted. Rockfang (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Schools are generally notable. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That's not a notability policy, although everyone is entitled to their own opinion; and frankly, it's fine if an article about a school stays up for a week or so while the teacher is conducting a lesson that involves Wikipedia. However, as a matter of Wikipedia's practice, high schools are considered inherently notable, meaning that they are entitled to an article by virtue of being high schools. Elementary schools are not automatically presumed to be notable, and are usually mentioned as part of an article about the school district. I'll say delete because some folks do a cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs when they read the word "merge". Looks like a few years ago, a user mass-produced a bunch of stubs for schools located in School District 35 Langley, and this and the others can fold into that. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - This is one of the sore spots on Wikipedia, we do not have any real policy governing school related articles, however the norm I have seen suggests that most elementary schools are not notable enough to have their own article. So per WP:LOCAL (which is not a policy but an explanation of a part of WP:N) I bet this can be merged either into a school district article, or an article on the municipality. If this for some unknown reason can't be done then I say delete it. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole idea that high schools are notable and elementary schools are not is laughable. They're both educational institutions and should be treated the same. Multiple independent reliable sources, awards and unique characteristics confer notability. (Remember, Wikipedia is not a directory) There is only one group of articles that are inherently notable and those are article already covered by existing encyclopedias. - Mgm|(talk) 23:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google only returned the schools official website and site of school district (not independent) and a directory listing address and phone number. We don't list those for other pages either so we shouldn't for schools either. In short: there's no independent and non-trivial reliable sources. - Mgm|(talk) 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to School District 35 Langley#Elementary schools per precedent. The merged content can be sourced by the school's website. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to School District 35 Langley#Elementary schools per precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So where is the independent coverage? Primary websites aren't supposed to be the sole source on a subject. - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a discussion about the content of the article School District 35 Langley, nor will the outcome of this particular discussion about an elementary school have any effect on the continued discussion about whether high schools should get some type of preferential treatment. I think it's fairly clear that no compelling reason has been advanced for keeping a separate page for Peacock Elementary. Mandsford (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are also discussing School District 35 Langley, because there are 20+ other separate elementary school articles in that district. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must have misread the nomination. Let's keep the article about the school district, and delete the other 20+ articles. Mandsford (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD is only for Dorothy Peacock Elementary School. No other articles are being nominated in this AfD.--Rockfang (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Its difficult to really give an opinion on this one individual article since there are a bunch of similar articles that need to be addressed. Any lasting solution is going to involve determing what to do with all of the articles on the elementary schools for School District 35 Langley. I really don't think its a good idea to leave this article as it is but I also don't think its a great idea to merge it into the article on the school district. I'm not sure deletion is the best solution either. Perhaps a better solution would be to merge all of the District 35 Langley elementary school articles into one large article.Nrswanson (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with nrswanson on this one. I suggest withdrawing this nom and either proceed with a multiple AFD of all the School District 35 Langley elementary schools or proposing some sort of merger of the articles. Either way I don't care but these articles should be handled together.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:27, 20 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, author withdrew article as shown by his tag DGG (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krier (LRDF)[edit]

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

Fictional character in draft of unpublished fictional story. Author of unpublished story is the author of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this as fast as possible please--I trust I don't have to give any more reasons. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails all three essential criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): 'Importance of the fictional work', 'Role within the fictional work' and 'Real-world coverage'. —BillC talk 00:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced fictional creature in unpublished story. Edward321 (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of notability. Prod tag removed without explanation. The creator of this article appears to be the very young author, I'm not providing evidence because author is underage and it isn't necessary. Be nice, folks, but, yes, this must be deleted and the author encouraged to publish the work in more appropriate places. Come back, Madison, when you are famous, and we can all laugh about this. Let me know when your book is published if I'm still alive (I'm old, I'm not saying you won't be famous soon. Good luck.) --Abd (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Author not properly notified, but knows about the AfD, I will place notice on Talk. The author attempted to edit the template with a plea for keeping the article. --Abd (talk) 20:22, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St.John the divine[edit]

St.John the divine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page is incomplete and doesn't assert the subject's notability Astronaut (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the ghits that you cited, Bearian. Almost none of them relate to this church, unfortunately, and the very few that do are outside of WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:12, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lazarus Covenant[edit]

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

Article about an unpublished thriller, "to be released on May 1, 2009". Almost entirely plot summary, over 1,200 words. Input by SPA author Craynor1 (talk · contribs), who has also input an article about the author - see his AfD above. Fails WP:BK#Not yet published books. Contested PROD; intent is clearly promotion, but Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Also: (1) The book is unpublished, (2) the publisher is brand-new and likely non-notable itself, and might be a self-publisher, I can't really tell. (3) The cited NY Times article is completely unrelated, it does not mention the book or author as far as I can tell. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it does indeed seem to be self-publishing, in fact a family affair. The author's wife Ciri Fenzel is Founder and President of the publisher BREATHE; on the website's blog she signs herself "Ciri Raynor Fenzel", and the article author is Craynor1. BREATHE seems to be mainly a marketing/PR consultancy; as far as I can discover from the web-site they are new into publishing and this is their first and so far only book. I am surprised that professional marketers have not learned that WP is not the place to seek free publicity. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - If this is deleted, it is with no prejudice against it being re-created after the book is published and notability established via reliable sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the Linguist's caveat--but if it comes back, I hope it won't be so spammy. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom,fails WP:CRYSTAL and spammy. ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the article has been semi-protected because of repeated removal of the AfD template by different IPs. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition, it's apparently a self-published work and there is no indication of notability (some not-yet-published books are notable, this one does not appear to be so). --Bonadea (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's clearly not self-published. But several alarm bells are going off in my head as I read the website of the publisher. It's full of unclear marketing speak and phrases to reel in newbie writers who don't get their talent recognized by others. It's usually a bad sign when publishers also run other services on the side. I'll check with an expert. - Mgm|(talk) 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a publisher running other services on the side; it's a retail marketing consultancy which is going into publishing on the side - see below. JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, book has not yet been released. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Rebuttal to JohnCD and MacGyverMagic: The novel IS currently published and is currently available direct from the publisher (www.breathepress.com). General Release in brick and mortar retail stores is scheduled for 1 May as a deliberate release plan. BREATHE Press is a small, independent publisher--NOT a vanity press (LULU, iUniverse, Print-on-Demand etc.). The book is being produced in traditional "offset printing." Additional details of publication are available from the publisher: www.breathepress.com or by emailing: [email protected] In fact, the novel is the first title for BREATHE Press as the publishing house was established in 2009. Does a new business constitute "non-notability" for its product? More titles from other authors are planned. All major publishers have resident marketing, media relations and PR in-house capabilities. Few small, independent publishers have a similar capability; however, BREATHE Press has that resident capability. Publishing, marketing, media relations and Public Relations are, by their very nature, interdependent.
  • As provided in the references, the novel's ISBN and Library of Congress control numbers are freely available for confirmation: ISBN 978-0-9822379-0-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2009901671

  • The NYT article, in fact, suggests current RELEVANCE of the novel, as it describes a coincidental resurgence of instability in Bosnia, which mirrors the plot of the novel, as stated. The reference does not purport or attempt to claim mention of the novel.
  • The Wikipedia page is not designed to "seek free publicity," as is alleged--and uses a similar template/methodology used in pages for other novels in the same genre.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Craynor1 (talk • contribs) 03:52, March 15, 2009 — Craynor1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not familiar with the details of iUniverse, but the things I heard about it are not good. You are however mixing up vanity publishing and self-publishing. See this page for a good list of definitions. Lulu falls squarely in the self-publishing category. - Mgm|(talk) 10:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: MacGyverMagic, I would respectfully request close consideration of the rebuttal provided: BREATHE Press is NOT iUniverse. It is NOT Lulu. It is NOT Print-on-Demand. The Lazarus Covenant IS a traditional offset printed novel with a large first printing by a small, independent (sole proprietorship) printer that does NOT fit into any of the self-publishing categories cited on this talk/discussion page. The Lazarus Covenant has an ISBN and a Library of Congress Control Number. It also is currently available. I am a new user to WP, and would appreciate experienced users' assistance in creation of this page to demonstrate notability of this novel. The WP page for The Lazarus Covenant closely follows the same template and methodologies/best practices for other novels. The intent in creating the page is not free publicity--but awareness of a notable novel that is both substantive and compelling. If there is a perception that self-promotion is an objective/goal, I would be happy to make recommended edits from you and other experienced users. Thanks, in advance, for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craynor1 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC) — Craynor1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Please only !vote once. Edward321 (talk)
  • Comment - correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that BREATHE is a retail marketing consulting firm, founded by its president Ciri Raynor Fenzel, which has newly set up a publishing arm in order to publish Ms Fenzel's husband's book. If not self-publishing, that is very near it. JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The important question is whether the book is notable. That it has an ISBN number and a LoC number only shows that it exists; that it deals with notable current events does not make it notable in itself. The notability of the publishing house also isn't the primary indicator of notability for the book (though it can be one indicator). Please have a look at the notability criteria for books - that's what the article needs to show that the book meets. --Bonadea (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JohnCD, LinguistAtLarge and ukexpat above. Offset printed? I wouldn't really have expected letterpress. I quote from the Wikipedia article on offset: "The majority of modern day printing is still done using the offset printing process.". Looking at the book, I am intrigued by having someone flee from Yugoslavia to Northern Ireland. Which is the frying pan and which the fire? Those things aside, the two words that come to mind are TOO SOON. If Wikipedia had been around at the time of the launch of Virgin Records' first release Tubular Bells, this record and company would have been regarded as non-notable. A few months later..... Come back when there is success (or notoriety - that can be notable too...). For now, I wish you luck with both the book and the publishing venture. It's a tough world to be in. Peridon (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The intent in creating the page is not free publicity--but awareness of a notable novel that is both substantive and compelling." SPiced hAM and chopped ham with pork taste very similar when grilled. Is not making people aware very similar to getting publicity? Peridon (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The article is advertising for an unreleased book. It appears to be self-published and the publishers own website argues against notability by saying it "was established in 2009 to publish new, virtually unknown authors". And there are zero independant sources about this book. Edward321 (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing here establishes notability for this book which has either not been released yet, or has just been released, I can't figure out which is the case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete book does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BK, re-create article when he book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, not that it matters here, but the writer could do at least some research about the location of the novel. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the same tack, I thought the mass executions and 'troubles' in Yugoslavia came well after Tito. In Tito's later years, Yugoslavia was an open country with a booming tourist trade. Peridon (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The late 1940s and early 1950s after WW2 were the espionage time and people were sent to penitentiary and sentenced to death for this. Later, the country was very stable and had a booming economy under Tito until his death in 1980s when an inflation started (my uncle had bought a Ferrari on a ten-year loan in 1979 and in mid-80s he paid off the whole loan using a month's pay). In the early 1990s, a series of wars happened and were followed by a stop of inflation as each new country adopted its own currency and a major economical decline. In 2000s, the economy is booming again, although Croatia and Slovenia have much higher standards and GDP than the rest of former Yugoslavia. That's about it. No war heroes became archbishops of the Croatian capital. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked back in the history - I don't think they've been changed. The earliest versions have links to the website not to the Wikipedia article. Peridon (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So then there has never been another article that links to this one. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is, Craynor1 didn't add the link. It's not easy to check going that way - unless you're a bot with time to spare. The Lazarus Covenant has a link to John Fenzel but there's no link the other way. Interesting... Peridon (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and Salt - shameless promotional push by s.p.a. account. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well qualified to write a good thriller, but that doesnt guarantee the result. This is a pre= prepublication hype & promotion for what might turn out to be a ntable book, or might turn out a flop. In the case of a well established authors, all of hose books are notable, we can say the next one on the same lines will be also. But this is his first novel.DGG (talk) 08:28, 19 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. WP:CSD#G11. This is blatant spam that would need to be rewritten to become encyclopedic. This is shown not only by the cited quotations, but by the entire article. Mgm|(talk) 23:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cordys[edit]

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

Delete non-notable company unverifiably claims to have an "agile enterprise solution that transcends the traditional way of integrating with the existing technologies. It focuses on providing solutions that are both cost effective and futuristic., among other things. The article was created by User:Kshivakumar (Shiva Kumar Korikana and a Cordys Associate Software Engineer IRL according to a quick google search) so there are WP:COI and WP:NPOV issues too. Article reappeared after being successfully prodded back in 2006. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:11, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kentee Suone Pasek[edit]

Kentee Suone Pasek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an autobiography with numerous references to local group exhibitions and minor shows, including reviews of high school achievement, taken from the artist's website. Self-promotion which satisfies neither notability nor significance standards, per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Disclosure: I originally nominated this for speedy, and discussed rationale on talk page, as an anonymous IP. A review of the content and the sources suggest the speedy route was justified. JNW (talk) 16:50, 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. Icewedge (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honduras DJ Top10[edit]

Honduras DJ Top10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced. Possibly a hoax. Makes absolutely no reason as to why this is a notable topic. I tried to CSD but tag was removed. Cssiitcic (talk) 15:52, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Piper PA-34 Seneca crash[edit]

2009 Piper PA-34 Seneca crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no indication of lasting notability here. Yes, there was a terrible tragedy, with six people killed, but that does not equate notability; even six does not make 'unusual circumstances' as described by WP:AIRCRASH - hence, a failure of WP:NOTNEWS. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the article has not been expanded yet. I was planning to write in it that the crash killed two activists for Polish society in Chicago, whose death was mourned. I believe this is a justification for the notability of the article, which should have its space not only on Polish Wikipedia, but also here, since the tragedy happened on US territory. Kasjanek21 (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If those two people or the society they worked for are notable, I suggest creating articles about them. Edward321 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - any air crash is a tragedy, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and per WP:NOT#NEWS news articles need to be about something of "historical notability". JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, so I'm NOT going to expand the article. It's useless. I bet at least 30% of articles here on Wikipedia are of no notability but you guys out there treat things selectively. I could have put more effort in making the article more comprehensive and show how notable the people who died in the crash had been, but what for? For having the article deleted anyway? It's all too discouraging. Kasjanek21 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why not spend your time writing about one of the many air crashes that are notable, but which don't have an article yet? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could post at Wikinews, which is interested in news stories. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Small plane crashes are common and there appears to be anything notable about this particular one. – Zntrip 20:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is a tragic accident indeed, but crashes like this happen every day. So delete per WP:NOTNEWS. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, tragic, but not encyclopedic. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just another non-notable small aircraft crash, one of thousands. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 07:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deko Dekov[edit]

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

This is part of a walled garden created by DDekov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) describing his own research, using primary sources only, with grandiose claims of priority that would not survive scrutiny and hence violate WP:NPOV. Aside from the severe WP:COI problems, the research does not appear to be notable, and I believe Dekov fails WP:PROF. I am also nominating:

Note that a superficial look at Google scholar gives the wrong impression: the Euclidean Geometry reference has 22 citations, but they are entirely self-citations. The Deko Dekov page was already deleted once, in 2006, but I don't see an AfD so likely WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a clear WP:COI. Also I've searched for his name on Google but couldn't find anything substantial. He published a few articles but none of them seem to have received independent reviews, and none of them appears in major publications. Same thing for the three related articles. Laurent (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable self-promotion; I suggest adding Journal of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry to the nominees. - Biruitorul Talk 15:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the same time you were suggesting this, I was adding this — done now. Thanks for the suggestion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For information: The 2006 deletion was a speedy deletion because the author and sole editor, Dvdvd (talk · contribs), blanked the article. The deleted article gave Dekov's full name, including the middle name whose initial is "V". (Xyr initial is also given in the papers that xe has written.)

    David Eppstein, I think that you are, if anything, underplaying the problems with what's available via Google Scholar. All of the results bar exactly four when looking for "Deko Dekov" are articles from the so-called Journal of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry. Despite the presence of an editorial board and a call for referees, this isn't an actual mathematical journal. I've just gone through it. Its articles are machine-generated, and all by Dekov xyrself. The one human-written piece was a letter to the editor (which is Dekov) from Dimiter Skordev, pointing out errors of attribution and fact in the machine-generated articles.

    The remaining four articles are papers by Dekov, which don't document any of the above subjects. Looking for the "Machine for Questions and Answers" and other such things yields similar problems. There's no better to be had from Google Books or Google Web, furthermore.

    The only place that this computer program, machine-generated "journal", and machine-generated "encyclopaedia" are documented is on Dekov's own WWW site. Let alone anyone else, it appears that not even Dekov xyrself has published any papers about them in any actual, human-written, peer reviewed, journals of mathematics.

    There are serious verifiability problems here. The only sources with any information at all are not human-written, and they only document these subjects insofar as they contain boilerplate text to the effect of what the name of computer program that created them is. There's no in-depth documentation to be had on these subjects, and what entirely superficial and scant documentation that there is isn't published in a reliable publication, doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, isn't human-written, and doesn't even appear to have escaped its author and become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge.

    Finally: All of the documentation of Dekov xyrself that appears to exist is autobiography, on xyr own WWW site. The PNC is not satisfied, there. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Besides, he already has his own computer-generated encyclopedia; that seems like the perfect place for him his computer to reference his own computer-generated cruft. – 74  01:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that the fact that there's no independent sources that talk about him says it all. Matt (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Note from Dr.Dekov:

    Thanks to all participants.

    The Machine for Question and Answers is the first computer program, able easily to produce new knowledge. The Encyclopedia of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry is the first encyclopedia, all results in which are produced by computers. The Journal of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry is the first journal devoted to mathematics created by computers.

    I have included the above statements in the articles, because I believe that the Wikipedia users have to know the facts.

    The first version of the Machine (2006) is relatively primitive. The aim of this first version is just to test the validity of some of algorithms. The first version of the Machine is produced by using relatively primitive software tools. But the first version of the Machine easily produces thousands math theorems, including thousands new theorems. The first versions of the Machine easily produced the first (still test) version of the Encyclopedia (2006).

    I am working on the second version of the Machine which uses new software tools, including new programming language. The new version will be able easily to produce approximately 10 millions new theorems in Euclidean Geometry, that is, to extend essentially the current Euclidean Geometry. I plan to form a team of researchers from a few countries in order we together to produce the second edition of the Encyclopedia. The researchers will use the Machine to obtain new results, and will be authors of articles of the Encyclopedia (and co-authors of the Encyclopedia). Also, the researchers will have the possibility to publish their results in journals.

    I would like to invite Dr. Eppstein and others who are interested, to join the team.

    Computer-Generated Knowledge is important for the future of science and I believe that the Wikipedia users have to be informed about any success in this area.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Dekov —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDekov (talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • They'll be informed when you go through the proper academic processes and publish papers about your work in proper, human-written, peer reviewed, academic journals. Wikipedia is not a mechanism for performing end-runs around such processes. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is not a journal, it is not a free WWW host, and it is not a publisher of first instance. You do not publish information about your work by going to your university library and writing directly into the books and encyclopaedias there. You do not publish information about your work by coming to this encyclopaedia and doing the equivalent. You publish it using the normal, well-known, and long-standing mechanisms, of formal academic peer review and publication in formal academic outlets. This is what encyclopaedists require of researchers. This is what the world requires of researchers. Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The user has tried to edit-war with me over the "autobiography" tag on his autobiography. That alone says his intentions aren't the most sincere. All of these are blatant self-promotion which isn't what Wikipedia is for. Themfromspace (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all apparent SPA; apparent COI; apparent OR; no independent sources; no evidence of notability; the on-line "encyclopedia" is little more than a shopping list of theorems. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an archetypical illustration of the dangers of writing articles about yourself and/or your own work. I must say that I am surprised that Dr. Dekov does not understand the academic process better: he has 20 publications on mathscinet, 9 of which are in journals with a perfectly solid international readership and reputation. It would certainly be possible to write a reasonable article about his academic work. (Whether it would pass our WP:PROF standard is another matter, but the current version is not appropriate for any encyclopedia.) Plclark (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all lack of reliable, secondary, sources independent of the subject; fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This recommendation applies to all of the articles that make up the WP:WALL. Computer-generated mathematics is an intriguing idea, with the potential of attracting media coverage and helping one or more of the articles pass notability requirements in the future (including Dekov’s article, under WP:BIO. Unfortunately such coverage is practically nonexistent at the moment, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All fail WP:V, WP:N. RayTalk 17:24, 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 08:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Scheurwater[edit]

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

Autobiography about a web designer whose only claim to notability seems to be the recipient of (what appears to me to be) a small website design award. Fails WP:BIO. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. That's a borderline case. If the information on the article is accurate, he actually received two awards and 10 nominations for his work, so I think he may pass WP:N. On the other hand, there's a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since he wrote his own article, so we definitely need to check the validity of the awards / nominations.
Delete. Okay the "nomination" list is very misleading. You don't actually get "nominated" by these websites, you just register yourself and that counts as a "nomination". So he just registered himself ten times and put that as a list. The website that gave him the awards doesn't appear to be notable itself so in the end, he fails WP:N and of course there's still the WP:COI issue.Laurent (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. In everyone's eyes a national award is a national award. Therefore he would pass WP:N in his defense writing your own article will leave the readers with more accurate information. SteveGin (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) — SteveGin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Let's take a closer look at the award then; even if receiving the South African Web Award confers notability (which I don't believe it does by itself), these awards are given to the website, not the creator. Thus, zero evidence of notability for Mr. Scheurwater. Also, see WP:AUTO for our guideline on autobiographies. --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay lets go into detail
  • The notability was checked by an admin User:Ruslik0 when I created the article
  • I created the article the rest is up to the people if they want to edit or read.
  • Even if the award got given to the website in the DISCLAIMERS on the website it says I AM THE WEBSITE DESIGNER don't say that you have taken a closer look into it if you have NOT!!!
  • Who r u>? BTW
Please don't trying to vandalize or remove article them if they are notable
Thx RobScheurwater (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is vandalizing the article, we are discussing whether or not it should be deleted. This is a normal process here at Wikipedia. No one here is doubting that you created the websites in question. My opinion is simply that because it was the website that received the award, and not yourself directly, that notability is not conferred.
The edit you refer to by Ruslik0 was merely the removal of the speedy deletion tag. An article that claims notability, however thin a claim, cannot be deleted speedily. Nowhere that I see does he indicate his opinion on actual notability.
Who I am is a Wikipedia editor. That is all that is important here. But if you're asking how I came to nominate this article, I stumbled upon it while performing New Page Patrol. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no article for the South African Web Award (and based on my failure to find any hits for it in Google news, there should be no article). This is a non-notable award that does not convey notability, and as discussed above, even if it did convey some notability it would be primarily on the web site. Google news also fails to find any hits for Scheurwater himself, so he fails WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like I said notable is notable no matter what anyone says, thinks,and cares and national awards fall under notabilityWP:N. I have already send the South African Web Awards an email about this and that they should start an article on Wikipedia. I have already made a start for them they will update the winner list on Monday. Google news??? There are website confirming that I have won the awards. In write most of it myself, so that the article explains and people understand the notability Wikipedia:BIO#Failure_to_explain_the_subject.27s_notability, so Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is not a valid tag, because I wrote most of it myself. RobScheurwater (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "failure to explain the subject's notability" section you refer to above is a suggestion to Wikipedia editors, not the subject of the article, that they should be bold and fix problems as they see them, if they can. Good point about the COI tag though; I've changed it to the more appropriate "autobiography" tag. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unable to establish that SA Web Award is notable. The only mention it seems to get is from sites stating that they've been awarded one – no press coverage or critical commentary. The FAQ doesn't instill much confidence – just by creating an account with the site, anyone can "participate in the website review process." An award where anyone can help judge is going to struggle to be taken seriously. Couldn't find anything else that would help him meet the WP:BIO guidelines. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? thx for your opinion, but when the MTV Awards get taken place people get to vote too those votes don't count a lot. It is the same here people can register to judge (peer judge), because it only counts 10% (peer judge) of the overall mark. The panel of judges (SAWA judges) count 90%. I am not comparing the MTV awards with the SAWA, because I hope you see the similarity. Can name another Website Designing Awards besides the CLIO Awards that has media coverage. By the way i am going to the CLIO Awards 41.243.250.126 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't actually give a reason for your keep. This is a discussion, not a vote. If you can provide sources that show that the awards are notable then that will help your position. You do raise an interesting point: the judging process doesn't appear to be stated anywhere: Who exactly are the SAWA judges, where is it specified that only 10% comes from signups, how exactly are these numerical ratings generated etc. It really just seems like a unprofessional operation to me. Certainly this is just my opinion. As too is the lack of notability of the awards ... unless someone can demonstrate otherwise. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To 41.243.250.126 it is 75% (SAWA Judge) 25% (Peer Judge) and MTV is 80% Judge and 20% Voters. Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Creative_professionals A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Take this one for example - The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. I am the creator of the King's Kids Johannesburg website with is an international youth organization I created that website and maintenance it for free because they are a NPO it gets over 450 000 (almost a half a million) hits last year. I will get more info about the SAWA awards for you ASAP ever though it is a national award. In South Africa the press doesn't come to that stuff they to freaking busy with the FIFA 2010 and the crime in South Africa. RobScheurwater (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is simply no reliable sources covering Robert Scheurwater. The web award does not rise to the level of recognition that would meet notability for wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't actually give a reason for your delete opinion, because you just said it is not notable even though it is a national award and according to Wikipedia national awards are notable. By the way Wikipedia is with a Capital letter. From RobScheurwater (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. From WP:BIO, A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. So winning a "national award" is not any guarantee of inclusion. As for my opinion not being substantiated, the substantiation is the very opening sentence. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made at least two notable requirements:
i) I won 2 national awards and another one hopefully within 6 weeks.
ii) The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, = King's Kids Johannesburg website with is an international youth organization I created that website and maintenance it for free because they are a NPO it gets over 450 000 (almost a half a million) hits last year.
iii) The person is known for originating a significant new technique. = I am the President and Founder of AST which is a free copyright licensing company where people can submit their work onto a the National South African Copyright database. Which was started 2 months ago and people have already started submitting their work even though it isn't online yet. And is the first free copyright licensing company in South Africa. Which is going to be the new copyright technique in South Africa cost free. Press release will be on 1st April 2009 RobScheurwater (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - we clearly disagree on the notability from the awards. What you might win in the future is not relevant now. As for creating a website, I don't see how that rises to being a significant or will-known work. Starting a copyright licensing company regardless of whether it charges fees is not really originating a new technique. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • we is who? YOU you mean. I didn't say that what I might win in future. Starting a copyright licensing company regardless of whether it charges fees is not really originating a new technique. Is the new technique in South Africa I has not happened before and will be press released in April. I don't care how things work in Canada, but name five companies on national copyright database scale in Canada that does that for free. RobScheurwater (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We" is you and me, as in you and me disagree on the awards conferment of notability. And "...and another one hopefully within 6 weeks" seems to me to be a forward looking statement. As for the free copyright licensing company, there are many companies that work on clearing copyright. Some like the Copyright Clearance Center are even a not for profit. So doing it for free isn't all that different from other businesses. It's not a new technique. -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said Canada not U.S. Whpq "...and another one hopefully within 6 weeks" yes I am looking forwards to the judges results. In South Africa it is a new technique. AST getting registered as a NPO by the end of this month, because we don't charge people for getting their work copyrighted that is why it has not been released to the press. I am trying to get this implemented in South Africa copyright companies are charging people over $250 per submitting of their work. This is a new technique in South Africa, so just accept that it is a new technique in South Africa. RobScheurwater (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way I just checked the Copyright law from U.S is different compared to the South African copyright just to let u know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobScheurwater (talk • contribs) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My take on your points: (1) national award is not synonymous with notable award. No one has yet attempted to show that these awards are notable. (2) Your quote left out a significant part: "... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In this context, multiple independent articles would have to be written about the website itself - not just the organization (3) If this has generated you press coverage please go ahead and add the sources to the article. If not, and if the article is deleted, then just wait until you get coverage from multiple independent sources and recreate the article. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the South African Web Awards has 12 winners for March so far. February has 25 winners, and January has 10. These awards seem to be handed out rather freely. -- Whpq (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL - Most web design company hand out 50 category award due to different categories and then gold, silver, bronze and merit with SAWA they have combined all the categories so it work out roughly the same. Think and do the maths RobScheurwater (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity article created by non-notable person about himself is an example of what Wikipedia is not. This person has also created articles about A. Scheurwater Technology (his non-notable company) and South African Web Awards (the non-notable award upon which his non-notability is based). These should also be nominated for deletion.--Boston (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - autobiographical spam by vanity editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Per WHPQ here, the only claim of notability is this non-notable award and per OM above. This author has created a vanity autobiography that is a self-promotion piece with a never-stronger COI and no decent indication of any notability. Toddst1 (talk) 04:51, 19 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Rose[edit]

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

Has not played a pro game, there-for fails WP:Athlete. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather different from the previous article. Best to let the AfD play out, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:32, 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 02:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Umbrella Academy (film)[edit]

The Umbrella Academy (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is for a potential future film that at this stage has merely been optioned; article is premature in the extreme and blatantly fails WP:NFF. The Umbrella Academy already mentions the optioning of the film, and indeed the "Characters" section in the film article is just copied from there. Prod removed without explanation. PC78 (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following duplicate article for the same reason:

The Umbrella Academy (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: Not a film article Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to The Umbrella Academy (comic book). It certainly is a violation of CRYSTAL for film, but I hesitate to say "blatant" for an account editing for two days may not know all the ins and outs of wikipedia... and the point here is that the film is only a mention in the article which is about a comic book... NOT about a film. So rename and let the comic article grow if it can. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
  • Delete as it is not a film article and as the nom notes is alreadt covered at The Umbrella Academy Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:28, 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Nose Day 2011[edit]

Red Nose Day 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about Red Nose Day 2011. Red Nose Day 2009 will take place this year. There is nothing in this article that is not already known in the Red Nose Day 09 article. Antivenin 12:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There's virtually nothing there. And it's coming to something when the infobar on the right of the page is longer than the content of it. (And it was clearly copied from the page for last night's show - it says "preceded by - RND09: The Big One". (It was called "RND09: Funny for Money".) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I'm usually not opposed to thinking ahead, this should get deleted. This fundraiser is done every two years, so 2011 would be the next one. Unfortunately, nothing is confirmed yet, so there's nothing to tell about it apart from the fact that it is in all likelyhood gonna happen. That can be covered in the general article or the one from the previous edition. There's not enough content to support an article yet. - Mgm|(talk) 20:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More information is bound to come later on this year, deletion will not help anything.--SUFC Boy 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If information comes later in the year, then that is when the article should be created. We don't make articles first, then wait for information to include. That's the wrong way around. People searching for this expect information, so we should only have the article if we can offer it to them. - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article is content-free at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with above, this is content-free and probably will be until 2011, what is the point in having a blank page? Has Red Nose Day 2011 even been announced? How is it known that they will stop it this year?- --Elliethomson (talk) 22:43, 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. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montasy[edit]

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

The content cannot be verified as there are no reliable third-party sources. Antivenin 12:18, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wassia Enterprises[edit]

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

A NN company whose assertion of notability is not confirmed through a Google and Google News searching. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- why it is being deleted ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turaab (talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Reasons above. Perhaps this should have been a Speedy Deletion candidate. ttonyb1 (talk)
  • Speedy delete as spam. Note: the author is indef blocked as a spammer. andy (talk) 23:30, 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 and move per suggestion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian blogs[edit]

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

The blog notes there are 700,000 Iranian blogs so a list of them isn't appropiate. Many events in the article are of questionable notability. Computerjoe's talk 11:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, after considering Antivenin's point. Move. Are there any articles about Entertainment in Iran, Iranian censorship, etc? -Axmann8 (Talk) 12:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't understand how you can merge a timeline into an article about entertainment in Iran. This article should be kept, however the title of the article should be changed. It provides a detailed timeline (and summary) of internet censorship in Iran. Antivenin 12:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Just realized Axmann8 said 'Move', not 'Merge'. Sorry about that. Antivenin 12:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant merge, lol. -Axmann8 (Talk) 13:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. So I was right after all. =P Antivenin 13:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm willing to agree with the consesus to move this article. My problem was primarily what the name suggested. Computerjoe's talk 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long time Amnesty International member have long known about this (mainly due to official persecution of its writers) but never seen an article on it, itself. -74.242.254.23 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Agree with Black Falcon. And I don't think the article is "unnotable" either. --Roaring Siren (talk) 15:50, 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 05:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quaploid[edit]

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

I think the author made up this term. I could not find any mention of it in any scientific journals. Odie5533 (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed—viz the vandalism to Interphase and Meiosis. Bongomatic 12:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadraploid is an incorrect biological term. I think you may be thinking of a tetraploid however this just refers to cells with four sets of homologous chromosomes. We are refering to germline cells not somatic cells which your definition is more appropriate for. I am one of the authors of the page Quaploid (the co-author and I are studying Medical Genetics at University) and we believe that such a term would make the process of meiosis much easier to understand because currently we refer to the original and replicated cell as being diploid. This is illogical as for example, we don't refer to two men as a man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fannysyouraunt2 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:OR neologism, as per author's own statement above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the correct terms are either quadraploid (which is not often used), or tetraploid. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:NEO: "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No hits on Google other than on Wikipedia? This is definitely made up. Matt (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the correct terms are either quadraploid (which is not often used), or tetraploid", Only the use of quadraploid is monopolised in by mathmeticians so inclusion in public works would cause confusion. People are entitled to use new terms so long as they define them, this is how we get such a broad vocabulary. You are right it is definately made up but that doesn't make it incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altruisticgene (talk • contribs) 10:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not incorrect, but the point is that Wikipedia is not the place for first publication of your new idea, or anything new. See No original research and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The last is written mainly for people who have made up a silly word or a new game or a spoof religion, but its advice is serious and applies just as much to people like you who have made up a new word with serious intent. Only if it becomes established and widely used would an article be considered; and even then, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JohnCD (talk) 11:52, 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 (A7) by Nja247. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9mm SOLUTION[edit]

9mm SOLUTION (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources, self-published releases only Wronkiew (talk) 07:31, 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 keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ledger[edit]

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

I poured through google results, but he doesn't seem to be notable. Yes, he designed some of the artwork for Babylon 5 and four computer games, but he doesn't seem to have ever received independent coverage from reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources or citations. -Axmann8 (Talk)
  • Possible Copyright Violation - Significant amount of text copied from here and here. Though the second site is under the GNU license, the first one isn't. Antivenin 13:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims to be written by his widow (also with an article) - I'm not sure if this is documented. But if she was the author of the other sites and added it here, it should be ok I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems just about notable for comics, games etc. Curse Of Peter Ledger would surely not survive Afd though. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel this is a Keep article, but it needs more references as the Possible Copyright Violation raised by Antivenin is an issue. I think that Peter Ledger is notable for his work, but you have to remember he did his work before the Internet came into its own so references are more likely to be in newspapers and magazines, esp. fan magazines. The article also needs a bit more work and clean up. --Artypants, Babble 14:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Australian comic book awards are named after Ledger. You can't really get more notable within your own field, can you? Hiding T 13:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have trouble believing an article on this topic cannot reach WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Hiding. If there are WP:COPYVIO issues that's not a reason to delete the article just its existing content :-) Mark Hurd (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does sound like a keep, but it lacks reliable secondary sources to establish its notability. If the material is true, these shouldn't be too hard to find, but it should be tagged as such.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have an article on the Ledger Award and, following Hiding, there have to be more sources out there (I'd assume their lack is because it was created by someone who knows all the information, which is fine for them but we do need more than that). It could possibly do with a good copy edit with an eye to tone and neutrality but that can all be dealt with using conventional tags. (Emperor (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Keep Seems notable, and accomplished and any fan of Uncle Scrooge and Carl Barks can't be all bad...Modernist (talk) 21:57, 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 speedy deleted by Ruslik0, CSD G11: Blatant advertising. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liangchao[edit]

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

This is nothing more than a self-published resumé. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I figured it would be more disguised, but no, this is actually just a resume. Non-notable too. Could probably be a speedy. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:32, 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 delete G12 by PMDrive1061. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her Productions[edit]

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

Fails in WP:N WP:V. Not notable. Taroaldo (talk) 04:53, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curse Of Peter Ledger[edit]

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

Delete Does not seem notable at all. Who is this Peter Ledger? An "avid fan"? definitely not notable. Cadwaladr (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable, I couldn't find any citable sources talking about it so it doesn't seem worth a merge. DreamHaze (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable.--Dmol (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Who is Peter Ledger? - see his AfD five above this in the list. JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable secondary sources to verify this. Antivenin 13:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "None of them have not won a championship since his death in 1994" That would be a double negative cancelling itself out. I wouldn't mind a curse like that. It basically says all of them won a championship since his death... - Mgm|(talk) 23:05, 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. New user does not understand use/role of AfD. Article needs clean-up, not deletion. StarM 15:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lacy[edit]

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

false information Bluelacy (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is much of the information on this Blue Lacy page that is false and misleading. This page was created to promote a group of individuals and not the breed or true facts. Here are two credible sources will reveal some of the misleading information. http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/dogs/tx_blue_lacy.htm http://texinfo.library.unt.edu/sessionlaws/79thsession/bills/hcr/HCR108.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelacy (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC) — Bluelacy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep. First of all, AfD is not for cleanup. If you want editors to realize which statements are misleading, you'll have to do more than say "Here are two sources what will reveal it." Reveal what? But even if you could point that out, this is the wrong forum. If the articles has mistakes, correct them and give proper references. What individual is being promoted? That cute dog, top right? (Nice dog, Warrington!) And that really is the end of it, since you don't say that the subject is not notable. But, for good measure, there is this Google search which indicates notability in a sufficient way, in my opinion. Maybe there is something that a passing admin can do here--speedy the AfD since no assertion of non-notability is made? Drmies (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor of this page knows what is stated false. The editor of this page will then just change it back and it would be a back and forth editing job. Look at the "References" section. You will be able to see what group the editor is with. You will also not see this group included on HCR 108. You can also open theses references links. All but http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/dogs/tx_blue_lacy.htm are the same group. Notice how long their pages have been up. Not very long. This was a way to get more links to their site and pages with false information. Checking out how to speedy the Afd next. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|--Bluelacy (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC) comment added by Bluelacy (talk • contribs) 04:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't you have a discussion with the author then? Why take up time at AfD? (And why not sign your messages?) And I fail to understand what you are trying to establish. Group? What group? But it doesn't matter--none of your gripes (even if they are justified) should be addressed here. I don't think you will be able to speedy this: please check WP:CSD and you'll see that there's nothing there that you can use. Admin, can we please close this? Drmies (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-a3}} Discussions with author have been non productive. I am new to this type of format. I just forgot to sign. Really very sorry. I do appreciate the feed back :) I read this was the next suitable step when this happens on wikipedia. When you do use a speedy Afd code, where do you post it? In this section or on the actual page? The grips that are trying to be expressed are the false information regarding a dog breed that is very important to many, and an author popping up and putting false information and trying to bring credibility to other site and pages they created that are false as well. Wikipedia isn't for this type of posting. This is a battle many dog breeds are dealing with. Individuals trying to bring credibility to themselves or their sites to fraud people and puppy buyers. Editing will just cause an editing war with this author and that is also not profitable. Where would these issues be addressed if this isn't the way? Sincerely asking, --Bluelacy (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Discussion with the article author is not non-productive, it is non-existant. Your edit history shows your nominated the article for deletion before making any other edits to it or any edits to the talk page, you have made no edits to the article creator's talk page, and the article creator has not engaged in an editing war with you. Edward321 (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely encyclopaedical knowledge. Wrong reason given to delete an article. Warrington (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no reason for deletion shown, AfD is not for content disputes, use WP:DR. JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author has been spoken to on other false information spread not just on wikipedia. This will keep turning into an edited and re-edit seesaw. After posting the true information links, tried to go in and make a strike through on all the false information. That has already been changed back with keeping the same false information. The author and main sources referenced are not independent third party sources! There are many third party sources that can be used without trying to bring credibility to a certain group. The State of Texas Blue Lacy Pages, Atlas of Dog Breeds of the World, Dog Breed Info. ect... These sites provide the accurate information and do not generate puppy sales for one group. --Bluelacy (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I will try and edit the false information again. This time I will try and make the changes in a different color if it will let me.--Bluelacy (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see that you did. I have restored the original version. It does not do to put text that you like better in bold print, or to have contradictory information about the beast to just simply dump that in there. Also, the references became a complete mess, as anyone can see who looks at your final version--this after I spent hours making editorial corrections. I really suggest you try and practice in your sandbox first: I see that you have just deleted my entire talk page. A final note: "false information" seems to be a judgment call. Wikipedia works by way of verifiable sources. If those sources conflict, and if they are both of equal (or equally questionable) authority, then muscling out the other club is not the way to go. You claim there are so many third-party sources, books, etc.? Cite them. Properly, please. I'm going to do restore my talk page now, thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep – this is not what AFD is for. Bring this up by discussing with the user to inputted said "false information" or on the article's talk page. MuZemike 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 22:49, 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 keep. The list benefitted from improvements made near the end of the discussion. As modified I didn't see the list as violating WP:NOTDIR, and otherwise there really wasn't a violation of WP:LIST. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of all U.S. NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX affiliates[edit]

List of all U.S. NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX affiliates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We already have articles for List of NBC television affiliates (by U.S. state), List of ABC television affiliates (by U.S. state), List of CBS affiliates, and List of Fox television affiliates (by U.S. state). There is no need to have another article combining the four. The grouping is not really necessary either, while the companies are similar, there is no reason to group them together into one article. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as well-meaning but unnecessary. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep and rename to List of all U.S. major network affiliates or similar. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but this isn't and indiscriminate collection. It also brings something to the table not provided by the lists above, specifically a one stop article on all of the major network affiliates, which is encyclopedic and worthwhile. Cool3 (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list would be duplicative to the 4 already existing lists. Based on the size of those four, the "one stop article" would violate WP:SIZE, the same reason we do not have a List of all companies one stop article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much information that is perfectly fine within the current form of separate network articles. Duplicative of the network articles and unneeded. Nate • (chatter) 05:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What? No CW affiliates? No PBS? Actually, I can see the need and the use for a concise table that would have the information side by side so that, if we wanted to know all of the local stations for a particular market, one wouldn't have to go shopping at List of NBC affilliates, List of ABC affilliates, List of CBS affilliates, etc. That said, this particular list is not an improvement over the let's-go-shopping approach --- one can note the stations that serve Birmingham on a single line without writing BirminghamAlabamaBirminghamAlabamaBirminghamAlabamaBirminghamAlabama down an entire column. Mandsford (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A one stop list would violate size guidelines. (Also, this shouldn't have been posted before it was complete to begin with. Work on stuff in your userspace to make it the best you can before putting it in mainspace) - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unnecessary content duplication/fork. JamesBurns (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's just as well that this got nominated before the author got too far down the road. A comparative table could be created in a manner that wouldn't be excessively large -- it doesn't take much imagination to see how to do this efficiently -- but not in this form. However, a table listing all networks would not "replace" any of the existing lists. There is a seldom-used feature on Wikipedia called "Articles for creation", and anyone interested might try there. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have the separate lists, and a combination would create a mega-list. No need for it. Just delete. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 19:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is better served by the individual network articles (which already exist) and this grouping eliminates other, smaller broadcast networks whicj mey also have their articles. Eauhomme (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It list things that have their own wikipedia articles already. Thus I believe it meets the requirements for what a list should be. It is quite helpful if you are looking for stations. Just needs to have more things added to it, of course. A good start though. Dream Focus 04:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 09:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplication of other lists, plus where do we stop? Lets just expand it to list every single licensed affiliated television station. We have individual market templates if you want to see all affiliates for a given market.User:MrRadioGuy What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 12:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When completed it would be nothing more than an indiscriminate directory listing. ThemFromSpace 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; at least its better than List of some U.S. NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX affiliates. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, and improve A list like this would be very useful and would complement the other lists, not be duplicative. It needs a lot of work, though. This also does not come under any Wikipedia-policy-based definition of "indiscriminate" or "directory". DHowell (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that I've refactored it to a more concise format, and have added some major cities. Further improvements, besides completing the list, could be to add PBS and perhaps CW affiliates, and rename to List of U.S. major network affiliates; and perhaps add a population served or number of households served column for sorting as well. DHowell (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I note that the article was created with an {{underconstruction}} tag, which says "Please consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page has not been edited in several days or the page has no content at all." It would have been common courtesy to heed this request, rather than nominating for deletion just four minutes after creation. DHowell (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but it was not the current content of the article that I found unnecessary, it was the existence of such an unneeded article in the first place. It does not matter how much work it received, the whole article premise is why I nominated it for deletion. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Unneeded" is just your personal opinion, though, and not based in any Wikipedia policy or guideline, correct? For a contrary opinion, the editor below said on my talk page that this revised list is "the most useful article yet about American TV stations." Perhaps I should thank you, however, for prompting me to start work on something that I had planning to create for months but never got around to. :) DHowell (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Obviously, we have different opinions, and I am glad you took to improving the article. If Wikipedia was dictated by just my views, it would certainly be a boring place, that's why deletion debates are so useful. :) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article as revised based on DHowell's revisions. This is a sortable table that conveys a great deal of information in whichever fashion the user prefers. Although the other lists, which are about 15KB apiece, remain useful, this one does the work of the others with less space overall. I hope that the admin will relist this one, since this is a different article than what was originally nominated. Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 18 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, particularly given the dramatic improvement the article underwent mid-AfD. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Kingdom Fusion[edit]

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

NN, OR, somewhat self-promo. Game over. roux   13:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 14:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – the content is nearly completely copy-and-pasted directly from its Wikia entry here. I'm not sure on what actions to take as this is copying of GFDL-compatible text and hence does not constitute a copyvio. MuZemike 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep, Trim down & Tag for Cleanup While no improvements have been made since the last AfD, potentially useful sources have been cited in there which should definitely have been brought up for discussion. Nom offers a It's just not notable argument which isn't enough to delete, OR is a reason to tag for cleanup instead of deletion. For the sake of this present discussion I suggest evaluating whether This joystiq article and this Kotaku review (and possible other, more RS) can be used in this case (both sources are considered conditional use by the WikiProject VideoGames Sources List) and whether these are sufficient to rewrite a (much shorter) Neutral Point of View article or not. I'd answer with a weak yes (hence my !vote). Not opposed to redirect to interwiki link either. MLauba (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote Changed to Replace with MuzeMike's Version MLauba (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not notable is an excellent reason to delete. //roux   14:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not when it's not argued and substantiated. A blanket WP:JNN appears to indicate that you didn't bother following WP:BEFORE, if you did, please do mention what efforts you undertook in AfD Nominations. As it stands, it reads as if you were confusing notability and importance. MLauba (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • None of those indicate that it passes WP:N to me. Which is an excellent reason for deletion. If NN isn't a good reason for deletion, what's the point of the notability policy? //roux   15:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're missing my point. I kindly request that you argue why you think it's NN (in other words, what steps you have taken to reach this conclusion in accordance with WP:BEFORE) or withdraw your nomination for failing to do the required homework. MLauba (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're not reading. I did read the previous nom, I don't agree with its withdrawal, I don't think those sites establish notability due to largely being fansites, and I kindly request that you start A'ing some GF or withdraw your previous comment for failing to actually read anything. That good enough for you? So glad. //roux   15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Next time you could just specify all of this in the nomination proper so that we don't have to second guess your reasoning, and I'd also kindly remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks for clarfying though, it is appreciated. MLauba (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Beg your pardon? Telling me--quite erroneously--I didn't do my homework.. that's civil, yep. Christ. Look in a mirror before you post, k? Thanks. //roux   16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I initially only requested you demonstrated that you did, I do believe that is civil and is still admissible under AGF. That being said, as the requested substance is here now, I suggest we drop the rapidly growing tit-for-tat game, I don't believe anything is to be gained from there. MLauba (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflicts) That is, (taking from the deletion policy) the article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline; attempts to find reliable sources establishing notability have failed. That would be a reason for deletion. MuZemike 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (edit conflicts), but not per lack of established notability (albeit very very weakly), but because the entire article contains content not suitable for an encyclopedia—mainly not a mirror of the web site, not a web host, not a extensive guide about the game. MuZemike 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal – I whipped up something really quickly in my sandbox which (I hope) is far more encyclopedic, does not contain the unsuitable content I mentioned above, and is reliably referenced. I still recommend that the current state of the article in the mainspace should be deleted (that is, it could be deleted and then recreated with my version or similar), but I will not oppose straight keeping it and replacing it with a cleaned up version (namely my version or similar). MuZemike 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really a hack of Super Mario Bros., is it? I vote replace with your sandbox but that one statement bothers me. The only way in which I can see calling this a hack of SMB is that it borrows some sprites from SMB3. Soap Talk/Contributions 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed "is a hack of" to "is based off" (upon suggestion by MLauba) to avoid any negative connotations. MuZemike 23:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with MuZemike's stub so that we at least have an article that follows the style guide and verifiability policy. <pendantry>Roux, we don't have a policy on notability.</pendantry> I think the kotaku and joystik sources are pretty borderline for the coverage required by WP:GNG, so this is a "weak keep". Marasmusine (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Though MuZemike's sandbox version is a vast improvement neither of the sources used go near what I'd consider to be the letter and spirit of notability in terms of significant coverage. At the very least articles need a single secondary source of moderate depth and misc. smaller sources, these are just signposts. It may be that more sources appear in the future but that's just a possibility. Someoneanother 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. Fails WP:Note.--Sloane (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced now with my version from the sandbox [19]. Gotta change to keep as a result. MuZemike 06:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability and lack of significant coverage. Andre (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MuZemike's improvements Elm-39 - T/C 17:36, 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) 02:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still voting delete, of course. MuZemike's efforts notwithstanding, notability hasn't actually been shown. //roux   02:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy as WP:N hasn't been established. Thanks for the help, MuZemike, but it's still not yet ready. MathCool10 Sign here! 03:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exhibits no proof of notability Paul75 (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MuZemike's version as a well-sourced and encyclopaedic article. Notability's a guideline so it gets trumped by policy.
Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to rephrase, correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content, move text within an article or to another article (existing or new), add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced, or request a citation by adding the [citation needed] tag - policy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on MuZemike's improvement of the article. Edward321 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for now. There may be additional reliable sources which confer notability when this fan-produced game is released from beta, which will in my mind make the article keep-able. However, I am not convinced that the article as it stands meets inclusion guidelines. JRP (talk) 17:20, 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. MBisanz talk 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim soldiers[edit]

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

Baseless, and pointless topic. Most people in the talk page seem to think it should be deleted. I also feel the same way. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with caveats- List as it stands is overly broad. Perhaps trim out the 1900s and rename List of historic Muslim military figures. A central list of historic figures would be easily maintained and verified. Problems come in when we start talking about modern Muslim military figures. So, create a different page called List of modern Muslim military figures. If that needs to come back to AfD, so be it, but there is no reason to throw out the easily salvageable parts of the list. SMSpivey (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spivefy Sceptre (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep The article is encyclopedic, but it needs a cleaner title (perhaps "List of historical Islamic military leaders"...or something better) and focused editing. But I don't agree with the argument for deleting it -- it is not baseless or pointless. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY --Mhking (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no definition of "Muslim soldier" that will satisfy even the majority of users. Deb (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a general rule, every category should support a list also if people are willing to make them. Some people prefer categories, and they do have their unique uses, but that is no reason to remove navigational devices that other people find useful. As a list gives associated information, such as the military conflicts involved s, it provides more information than a category ever could. I did some cleanup. Dividing the list might be reasonable, and could be discussed separately. As should be needless to say, it doesn't violate NOTDIRECTORY, for it lists only the notable 0.001% or so with wp articles (or red links qualified for them). What "baseless' or "pointless" means in this context i cannot determine. DGG (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just think creating a category instead would be better. Or else son, you'll have a List of Hindu Soldiers and List of Christian soldiers, and soon Wikipedia would become a Wiki-battlefeld of religions. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the title of the article should certainly be changed to something less inflammatory. Once that happens, there shouldn't be a problem with articles like List of historical Christian military figures, etc. It is an encyclopedic and logical list that could be expanded to include a ton of contextual text. SMSpivey (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that there is a list of Hindu soldiers as well, which is being well maintained. If we maintain this article equally well, and make sure terrorists are not a part of it, then it can go upto the status of a featured article. So I guess, we can close the AfD and keep the article.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I'm trying to AGF, here, and perhaps I'm a bit confused, but bear with me. So, Wikipedia is not censored, and "terrorists" will probably be added to a list of notable Muslim military figures if they are Muslim, notable, and related to military action. All of these determinations on particular individuals are independent of what we decide in this AfD or about this article. As I said before, it makes sense to change the title of the article to be less inflammatory and suggestive, but it Wikipedia generally doesn't leave out a group of people thought to be "terrorists" by another group simply for that reason. See the AfD and arguments about List of war crimes to see how everyone's voice should be heard, and tempered against one another, in a place like Wikipedia. SMSpivey (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so lets us all pretend that this AfD never existed, and leave this article for Wikiproject Islam to pickup and maintain. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:59, 11 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) 02:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As a list of people selected for importance in this category and who have, or can reasonably be expected to have, their own articles, this topic satisfies the Wikipedia guideline for appropriate topics for stand-alone lists. The list includes information such as dates and reasons for prominence that may make it more useful than a category. References should be added and the list should be edited for consistent formatting, but it contributes to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and should be kept. BRMo (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a perfectly fine list, and is notable. Per DGG for most of my reasoning. MathCool10 Sign here! 04:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DGG and MathCool. -Axmann8 (Talk) 12:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move this to a sensible title, since this article is an Officers' Club and not a place for the enlisted men. If you're making a list of "Muslim military leaders" then say so. Mandsford (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of historic Muslim military leaders and rescope. The intersection of "Muslim" and "military leader" is, in most cases, trivial and not worthy of mention in a list. There is nothing special about the fact that a particular military leader from Iran, for instance, is a Muslim given that most Iranians are followers of Islam. What this list should contain is Muslim military leaders who are known primarily for their connection to and/or actions in the name of Islam (e.g. Saladin). –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:34, 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 delete as blatant hoax and copyright violation Nancy talk 07:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Bransford[edit]

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

Hoax. In February, an IP address made an in-article notation that the content of this article is a direct lift from the article of Madeline Cheek Hunter, with the name "Johns Bransford" substituted throughout. A check of the references and online searches confirm that the "John Bransford" version is the hoax. (Curiously, searching on Hunter's name in Google Books shows that her article itself may borrow its content from "Encyclopedia of World Biography" too closely for comfort, but with no preview available it's hard to establish without the physical book). Michael Devore (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as a blatant copy and GFDL violation. So tagged. Exxolon (talk) 01:52, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coneball[edit]

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

OR, non-notable game. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--is there not a speedy category for this? Drmies (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. JJL (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As long as there are used liquid containers and soft spheres in this world, there will be endless variations on games where one rolls something to knock other things down on a rainy day. Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the article itself says the subject is undocumented, that clearly shows lack of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:14, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quest magazine[edit]

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

A former redirect to the church that publishes that other Quest magazine, this page was recently turned into an article on a Quest magazine having to do with spaceflight. This seems like it presents a Wikipedia:Notability (books) problem, and if it turns out it does, this should go back to being a redirect. --Dynaflow babble 22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom; also a bit too ad-like, esp. with the prices. LetsdrinkTea 22:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and above comment. This is nothing but an advertisement. Why would a encyclopedia article say "People interested in contributing articles should contact the editor or publisher"? The price listings are tacky and overdoing it. Ltwin (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, nothing but an advert. StealthFox 23:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep, and trim out the sections of the article that make it look like an advertisement. The ISSN # link to the WorldCat website shows that there's enough libraries out there (including the Library of Congress) that keep copies of it to establish notability. It's hard to find any articles that talk about the magazine, although I did find a few articles/papers that cited the magazine as their source. (As a side note, it may become necessary later on to turn this into a disambig page, as there's multiple Quest Magazines out there.) Matt (talk) 01:30, 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 00:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep--I'm going with it, though weakly, for now, since the article appears to be peer-edited and has run for a considerable length of time. (Disclaimer: like the journal's editor, I get my paycheck from The Plains!) User:S Marshall and I have participated in an essay on this topic, the notability of certain kinds of journals and magazines--the only thing that's keeping me from fully supporting a strong keep is that there seem to be only a few references made to the journal in articles found through Google News. Perhaps a discussion here over the next few days can clear this up. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Unsurprisingly, as the co-author of the essay Drmies cited, I also agree with its content.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Matt and this already mentioned essay. I was able to find a few places where this magazine is mentioned, which also throws a few more coins onto the scales of notability. I'd also support moving this to Quest: The History of Spaceflight and using Quest magazine as a dabpage. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Matt. I also agree that Quest magazine should be turned into a dabpage with the magazines he linked to above listed at the dabpage. Also Quest Magazine and Quest (magazine) should be redirected to the dabpage. Finally, this article should be moved to Quest: The History of Spaceflight, which is currently a redirect. --Historian 1000 (talk) 18:34, 18 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, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. Carpenter[edit]

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

Associate at law firm whose notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by virtue of being a co-counsel on a couple of barely notable Guantanamo cases. Flunks WP:BIO: every source is either WP:PRIMARY or about one of his underlying cases. Redundant with existing articles. THF (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I reviewed nineteen articles in the A-through-C of the category, and made ten nominations. This article has a lot of footnotes, but they don't constitute significant independent coverage about the subject: two primary-source law-firm pages; a blog; a single sentence quoting him in the Legal Times; a copyright violation that doesn't mention Carpenter; a New York Times article that doesn't mention Carpenter; a UPI article that doesn't mention Carpenter; two articles that mention Carpenter in passing that are really about the case; an F. Supp. citation (every lawyer practicing in federal court has these--I have several myself. Not evidence of notability); a quote in the Missoulian; and the same Martindale entry that every other lawyer has. The other two cases in the article are not independently notable; the same Westlaw search can generate the same sort of WP:PUFF paragraph for tens of thousands of lawyers, even assuming that Carpenter was the lead lawyer on those cases, which may not be the case. Not notable. THF (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume there would be tens of thousands of notable US lawyers, that's about 1 or 2% of the profession.-- and after all, that might even include the nominator. TOO MANY is not an argument for deletion. NOT ME isn't an argument either. By the way, I agree with most of the other nominations (at least as far as merging, not keeping as separate articles) to the extent I've tried to find sources so far. Most of them do seem to be well considered. DGG (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability - if there is a notable person by this name it appears to be the Australian author born 1916 - and nothing here meriting a merge elsewhere. GRBerry 02:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, coatrack/BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just ftr, at no time during my representation of GTMO prisoners -- which continues to this day, after 19 years -- was I an associate at a law firm.
Not disagreeing with the decision, about which I was more relieved.
CC 184.166.66.148 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As the law firm website shows, subject is a partner and the head of the firm effort in the GB litigation. Three items cited -- Montana bar vote to close GB, Taibi attempt to recuse CJ Roberts, investigation of CIA tape destruction -- distinguishess cases from ordinary GB litigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.84.193 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per THF's exhaustive explanation of the sourcing/notability issues above. RayTalk 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I believe his dogged attempt to pursue the CIA over its violation of the court orders to preserve evidence that would show his clients were innocent merits coverage here. Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to closing administrators -- I know that this {{afd}} has run for close to the normal period. But I would like to request this article be relisted, so I include additional material. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 13 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. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not inherited, it is provided by the existence of independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject, separate from the single event which initially gave him prominence. There is no evidence of that here, althoguh there certainly is for Mr. Darrow. If an independent scholar should write a book on Mr. Carpenter, we would definitely revisit this debate. As for your failure to abide by WP:AGF, that is quite tiresome. Is it inconceivable that there might be serious editors who have noticed that a significant portion of an entire category of articles is likely to fail our notability standards, and have embarked on a legitimate cleanup effort of this swamp? Although THF and I have disagreed in the past, I have the highest respect for his devotion to Wikipedia, and the energy he pours into maintaining its quality. RayTalk 20:09, 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, MBisanz talk 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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, from the later coverage he received in print and film. Note that these features are missing regarding the subject of this AFD discussion. I also find the personal attack on the nominator, attacking the messenger and ignoring the message, to be in rather bad taste. The nominator, as is this author, is an attorney, and as such, special preference should be afforded to an attorney's professional opinion as to what makes another attorney "notable" in that profession. 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, including requests for spoliation as against the CIA as noted by another contributor, 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. As it stands, the subject's lack of notability dictates that the article be deleted. The author may want to use the links in the article with the articles related to the clients that the attorney in question represents. Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darrow would have been notable had he never written anything but a legal brief or an argument. An attorney's efforts for a client may for technical legal purposes be treated as those of the client, but in actuality they are his own, or really good trial attorneys would never command the fees they do. I have previously noticed the likelihood of those in a profession over-deleting material of others in their profession; this is not a personal reflection, I've even noticed i automatically tend to be skeptical of articles on librarians. A claim to delete because "we know better than you that he is not notable" should be disregarded. A strong attack against all articles of a given type, or people in a given specialty, should be treated with very strong skepticism. DGG (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to differ. An attorney's interest is aligned with that of his client. One does not become a "better" lawyer for one's client because one drives a Lotus or charges "really high fees", though this may be your opinion as a layman. I have seen public defenders that could wipe the floor with attorneys considered superstars. Your position that we are overly critical of our fellow attorneys is noted, but also discounted at the same time. The standards of the profession, and the role an attorney takes in representing a client, are matters known uniquely by other lawyers. Thus, to an attorney, representing some person who's a "really bad guy" is as relevant as representing Joan of Ark. Attorneys gain notability not simply by doing their job, which includes representing sinners and saints, but by gaining notability OUTSIDE OF REPRESENTING THEIR CLIENTS. The client is the one with notability, not the attorney who advocates for or against their interests. Yet that is what we have in this case. Carpenter's notability arises because he represents a couple of GTMO detainees, which is about as notable as representing a mass murderer in Texas, or a single mother in Baltimore, or a drug user in Phoenix. It simply does not amount to the level of being notable. Notability is simply not ascribed to an attorney because his client is notable. It is not inherited. Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:54, 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. MBisanz talk 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toutes Les Filles[edit]

Toutes Les Filles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BAND I think. Highest chart position is #44, lots of YouTube hits and such but haven't really been able to find much independent coverage. roux   00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a MySpace / YouTube band with no notability outside of these websites. I also can't find any independent coverage when searching for the names of the band members. Laurent (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see how they meet any of WP:BAND. (And to Laurent - they split up in 2004, very shortly after MySpace started.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no arbitrary cut off for charting. If they charted the position doesn't matter (at least not according to the guidelines). By using the charts we already cut out anyone who didn't make the charts; any further removals would be entirely subjective. - Mgm|(talk) 22:24, 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 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Aprigliano[edit]

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

This article was tagged for speedy deletion a week or so ago; I declined at that time because there appeared to be some potential notability expressed in the people for whom this "up and coming" pianist has played. I stated that if notability wasn't more firmly established, I would be starting an AFD; well, here we are. The subject gets minimal results in news archive searches. I frankly don't see anything here that suggests the subject meets WP:MUSIC, but would welcome further discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 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 00:07, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Mongolia relations[edit]

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

This is one of the many articles on non-notable bilateral relationships created by Plumoyr (talk · contribs). No evidence of notability is provided, and it seems highly unlikely that there is a significant relationship between the two countries. Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 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 00:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there really isn't much there. Sure, there've been the usual under-the-radar exchanges like ceremonial visits that happen every week, and there's been some teaching done of Mongolia in Canadian universities (which isn't really relevant to the relationship between the two states, as these universities are either private or run on the provincial level), and there's also been some trade (again not relevant to the state relationship: both countries are free-market economies, so presumably most of the trade has involved private actors). Other than that, there isn't much left, and as bilateral ties are not inherently notable, we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. Also, the presence of a Mongolian embassy in Canada indicates that the countries do care about maintaining diplomatic contacts. It is OK to pair two countries together to a "relationship" article if there is an active diplomatic or economic relationship which can be written about. When Canada is the second largest foreign investor in Mongolia [23], that should matter. Madagascar-Kiribati would probably not work. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those "contacts" (one assumes) largely concern trivial matters like stamping visa applications. Given there's not much more to write about on the diplomatic relationship, we shouldn't have the article. Also, as I've pointed out, it's not the Canadian government, but rather private Canadian companies, that are probably doing most of the investing. Such information can be (indeed is) covered at Economy of Mongolia. - Biruitorul Talk 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bazonka (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even if there is not much to say about the diplomatic relations, there seem to be commercial and academic relationships as well. Is there any reason not to include them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilary T In Shoes (talk • contribs) 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone considered doing an article on Liechtenstein-Nauru relations yet? Or Bhutan-Swaziland? Or even Paraguay-Papua New Guinea? Now there's an opportunity... Peridon (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There should be a variety of these articles, even they are stubs. Historic events are not personalities. There is no biographical time frame in which something has to become "notable." All historic events are "notable," and we never know their future status. If International Relations is to be a living topic on Wikipedia, then anyone who knows anything about Canadian-Mongolian relations should have a place to put that knowledge. It's obvious that Circum-Polar politics is changing very rapidly (I'm surprised that Canada is finally moving a bit more consciously toward resolving its issues with the various related nations - including Mongolia). Keep it.--Levalley (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]
  • Delete. We already have articles on the foreign relations of both countries. We can cover the most relevant material there and link to anything more externally we can't fit in the article. Combination articles are not a good idea. Even if you discount a couple of states, making articles for every combination of sovereign states gives a ridiculous and unmaintainable amount of articles (203! = 6.5*10381 to be exact). This article merely says they both have embassies, which is entirely unremarkable. Perhaps something could be written, but this is not the right place for it. - Mgm|(talk) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont think you get that many articles. (2032-203)/2=20503 is the number of articles if we have every two-country combination. 203! is the number of permutations for the 203 sovereign states, I don't think anyone has argued for an article on each of those (though we may well have the permutations ranking them by population and area). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still an unmaintainable amount when we could simply have 203 articles instead. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor responsible for these articles doesn't seem to be even attempting to meet the notability criteria, and doesn't explain their rationale, so they may well be aiming to create all 20,503 articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you just have one article per country you will be explaining the same topic in two places. Maybe that's OK if it's very short, but if it starts getting longer the two versions will probably get out of sync. Hilary T In Shoes (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Some bilateral relations articles are notable, as evidenced by the apparent continuous existence of the San Marino–Uruguay relations article. In any case, the fact that Canada and Mongolia care enough to maintain bilateral relations in the real world means that it probably deserves a space here. Just my opinion. In any case, the case fails to assert lack of notability specifically through WP:NOTE. Jd027talk 16:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. While there isn't much to say about the topic of "relations between the governments of Canada and Mongolia", there is quite a bit to write about the topic of "relations between Canada and Mongolia". I do not see why we should limit articles about bilateral relations to interactions between governments only and ignore interactions between non-governmental organizations (though ideally these would not be the main focus of bilateral relations articles), such as companies, cultural associations, educational or research institutions, and so forth. I do not agree with the statement that bilateral international relations are "inherently notable"—I don't think we should consider any topic to be inherently notable (see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires objective evidence) and I doubt that there's anything to say about Bhutan–Swaziland relations—but I do believe that many of them are indeed notable. By the way, I don't see the relevance of the "20,503 articles" argument: an additional twenty thousand or so articles, many of which already exist and are perfectly valid, is hardly noticeable in context of the nearly 3 million other articles we already have. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, but even if we do include non-governmental relations, there still isn't that much to say. True, Canada is the second-largest investor in Mongolia, a fact duly noted here, and courses on Mongolia have been taught in Canadian universities over the years, which isn't really notable (or if so, could be noted perhaps at East Asian studies). - Biruitorul Talk 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only mention of Canada in Economy of Mongolia is to note that Canada was Mongolia's 2nd-largest export partner in 2007, which is distinct from Canada being the second-largest investor in Mongolia. In addition, this journal article indicates that "since 1997 ... diplomatic activity as well as independent research and development cooperation led by Canadian universities has increased" (emphasis added), which suggests much more than just a few courses. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's certainly room in the Economy of Mongolia article to expand on Canadian activities there. As for the second part: without wanting to seem tendentious, it would certainly be helpful if we could see the whole paper and analyse more clearly the intensity of that activity rather than take the abstract at its word. - Biruitorul Talk 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why don't we try and expand the article instead of talking about why it should be deleted? It doesn't seem anyone here as actually put effort, opposed or against, into making it better.Lemniwinks (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With apparently only one source[24] on the topic of international relations between Canada and Mongolia, the notability criteria don't appear to have been met. ("significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject")Yilloslime TC 21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dez Reed[edit]

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

No notability established. The article proves the subject's existence, but doesn't show relevance. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The films mentioned under Film Work do not include him in the actors' list. Moreover I see no evidence of a large fan base (his tours seem to be limited to Saskatoon and Calgary). I recommend deletion per WP:ENTERTAINER. Antivenin 12:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:ENTERTAINER cf38talk 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - at least some of the articles under the references section don't seem to mention Mr. Reed. I think his verifiable notability might not be sufficeint to keep an article. In addition, the article is kinda all over the place. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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 00:06, 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 keep. University of Sistan And Baluchestan has been redirected here now that the content has been aligned. There is no dispute that the university is notable but what we had was a content dispute which should now be resolved by normal editorial means. TerriersFan (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Sistan and Baluchestan[edit]

University of Sistan and Baluchestan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article contains false statistics and it has no value. It is being considered for deletion by the authorities in the University. For correct information please refer to University of Sistan And Baluchestan Ethan.A.Hunt (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is certainly a possibility, but there's valuable information at University of Sistan And Baluchestan, so I think a merger is preferable. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:40, 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 00:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added the name of city given in this article (the only extra information in this one) to the big-A article, then copied the big-A article (the one with more content and presumably more reliable) into this one. The two are now identical apart from name. I suggest redirecting the big-A article here rather than the other way around. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake - I have removed the city name from the preface. The body of the article shows the university has campuses in several cities. I assume the little-A article was created in good faith, but if there is debate about the facts, e.g. number of students, it can be resolved within the unified article. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:40, 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 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panda Kopanda[edit]

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

Non-notable band who fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching brings up no reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 13:25, 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 00:06, 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 07:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Rollers[edit]

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

Non-notable band who fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching brings up no reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 14:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:MUSIC, I looked at the article but there's not enough notability for cleanup or expanding it cf38talk 15:13, 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, 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 Transwiki. transwiki MBisanz talk 09:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodrats[edit]

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

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:Neologism. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article has been translated into a wiktionary article, and thus nothing will be lost by removing the wikipedia article. (ignoring the question of whether or not the term is significant enough for wiktionary) -- DrDoog (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary so that we can get the full history over there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:51, 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, — neuro(talk) 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 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 When Silence Is Broken, The Night Is Torn. MBisanz talk 07:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Love You Breathe[edit]

This Love You Breathe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a musical recording that does not indicate the importance of the subject--QuestionOfAnarchy (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:53, 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, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Just another non-notable single. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:14, 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 05:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Canzano[edit]

Nicola Canzano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. non notable.

poss. a prank or a hoax. --Galassi (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G3. This is a hoax. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only the first ref mentions her name in passing. The rest doesn't. Unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 13:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Wiki-reader passing through, wanting to share my two cents. Though much of the information is unverifiable, it is not a hoax. I know Nicola personally and can at the least attest to his school, job, and talent for composition. Possibly these could be of some help:

- http://hornroller.com/french-horn/2009/03/10/apr_24_2009_first_street_music_series_classical_amp_jazz_concert_at_st_stephens_episcopal_church?mini=calendar/2009/2/all& <- Final paragraph mentions Nico's accomplishments. - http://hugamecollectibles.com/index.asp <- site's music composed by Nicola - http://hugamecollectibles.com/contact.asp <- above site's music credited to Nicola


Thanks, and have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.137.247 (talk) 15:36, 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 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of reliable sources writing about this individual -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 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 You Me At Six. MBisanz talk 07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Franceschi[edit]

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

The notability of this artist is in question. I found 4 articles with John Franceschi as the subject (5 but one's a duplicate) but I'm not sure if the sources are reliable/independent. I'm not 'voting' either way but I think a discussion is the best way to resolve this issue. OlYellerTalktome 18:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC) OlYeller[reply]

Note: This article has been deleted twice for lack of proof of notability.OlYellerTalktome 18:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just for anyone reviewing AfDs, this is about a pop singer, not an artist. I wish nominators would give a proper indication of the article subject, so that people reviewing AfDs who don't care about particular topics can move on rather than have to read the articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, you want to decide if articles should be kept or deleted without reading the articles? And since when are singers or any kind not artists? I fear for the articles you comment on.OlYellerTalktome 01:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not at all what I meant. I know very little about what sources in the field of popular music are reliable, so would prefer to leave the judgement of notability to others, but I feel that I can make a useful contribution to discussions about visual artists. I read every AfD nomination here, as I'm sure many others do, so it is helpful for an AfD nominator to give an accurate indication of the field in which an article subject operates so that we can decide which ones to investigate further. In normal English usage the unqualified word "artist", unless there is context that indicates otherwise, means "visual artist", not "pop singer". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand your first point and I'll do my best to more accurately describe a nomination in the future. As for your completely unreferenced conjecture that the English speaking society means visual artist and not pop singer when they say, "artist," I disagree (look at any listing of a musical album). I would though, ask you not to bite the newcomers and phrase your criticisms in a more productive way (Enlgish speaking society doesn't consider "I wish nominators..." to be civil). No matter how new or old the user you're criticizing is. OlYellerTalktome 12:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I came across as uncivil. I didn't mean it that way. As to your point about the word "artist" on any listing of a music album, that's why I included "unless there is context that indicates otherwise" in my comment above. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 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 00:04, 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 05:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitechapel (Musical)[edit]

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

Delete as WP:CRYSTAL and complete lack of statements regarding notability (would be a speedy candidate if musicals could be speedied). -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, in complete agreement with Lilac Soul. I took the liberty of cleaning up the article, since I did not want those unreferenced adjectives to stay on WP for another week. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep without prejudice for recreation. I actually do know about this musical. Unfortunately this reads like spam, and WP:COI given Leviathan90 (talk · contribs) contrib history. I want a good article on this since what I heard (not from a WP:RS) sounds great. jbolden1517Talk 06:06, 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 00:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I read the source right it is a production by an educational institution. Last time I checked those were not notable, especially when they haven't yet gathered press attention. I'm also hesitent about it because George Lusk wasn't a police officer of any kind. Either the play was based on misinformation or it spreads misinformation. If the article happens to remain it should explain how the Lusk in the play suddenly became part of the police force. - Mgm|(talk) 21:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no reliable sources covering this musical. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 05:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B-switch[edit]

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

Topic is non-notable, purely original research. A kind of a claim to notability had been removed, correctly, by the second editor as "POV and 'rumors.'" I tried to look for a CSD-option, but could not find it; if I overlooked something that does allow this to be speedied, by all means act upon your knowledge. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not look notable, especially since the B-switch was created in early 2009. Sarwicked (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agreed. This looks like original research WP:OR and a neologism. JamesBurns (talk) 05:20, 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 00:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unverifiable in addition to already noted concerns. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 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. No consensus to delete. The article has already been tagged with a merge proposal so that discussion can take place on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De Agostini UK[edit]

De Agostini UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining speedy deletion as spam, taking to AfD out of respect for the tagger, A More Perfect Onion ... he may know something I don't. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the article needs references and de-spamming, but it's about a notable company. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable publisher. See, e.g. The cut-throat world of partworks publishing Print Week Feb 05, or [25]. I've briefly copyedited the article to fix the most blatant problems. JulesH (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said, merging to the parent company's article (De Agostini) may be sensible from a purely stylistic standpoint. I'm going to tag the pages as a proposed merge. JulesH (talk) 13:05, 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 00:02, 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 07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owned Compilation[edit]

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

WP:Neologism, WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The author even seems confused as to what the term is. Is it "owned compilation" or "compilation owned"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Poor quality too. -- samj inout 03:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a clear definition of a well established internet phenomenon. Googling "Owned Compilation" got me 73,000 hits. It proves the term is commonly used, and for the definition the article lists it in. Some examples would probably be nice, although unless they already have articles of their own, it'd be deleted as spam. Dream Focus 17:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pwned Compilation zomg roflpmp (sorry) to Owned; it could have a subsection there, and this has a benefit for anyone using "Owned Compilation" as a search term without knowing what it means; it will expose them to the wider use of aspects of total ownage the adjective. pablohablo. 19:52, 11 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, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a clear delete. There are no reliable sources on the article and it's a clear neologism. The redirects aren't appropriate--it's not in widespread enough use to justify those redirects. If there are sources we're unaware of they should be added. Shadowjams (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTE, WP:RS, etc...--Sloane (talk) 03:01, 18 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 The Adventures of Captain Hatteras. There's no consensus to delete this article but I think the sources are still a little weak. I'm closing as "Merge" with no prejudice against keeping if stronger sources can be found (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New America[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a WP:Notable topic meriting an article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The island described by Jules Verne in his novel is hypothesized based on scientific knowledge at the time (1866). It is notable especially in that it foreshadows later claims to the existence of Crocker Land, Bradley Land, or other large Arctic islands. The novel includes detailed description of geographical features. I will expand the article with further information. Goustien (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Adventures of Captain Hatteras. This only seems to be notable in the context of the book, so, as the book article has plenty of room for more content, it would seem that the that would be the best place for this information. If any sources are offered in this AfD for coverage outside of Jules Verne's book then please treat this as a keep. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Phil Bridger jbolden1517Talk 06:13, 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 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added sources, so I hope this will justify a keep per Phil Bridger. Goustien (talk) 05:21, 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 05:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classroom (TV series)[edit]

Classroom (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Episode guide for a non-notable series of internet videos. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:27, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could envisage an article for the site's longest running show or the best-watched one, but certainly not every single one of them. They shelled out a lot of those awards and getting one doesn't really satisfy the award criterion for tv or films. It's not a "major award" as the guideline requires. - Mgm|(talk) 21:38, 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 05:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil kalra[edit]

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

Asserts vague notability, seems a little fishy. Prodded and contested. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Borderline vanity page from what it looks to me. Even if he is in some record books, what got him there doesn't appear to be very notable at all.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His claim to notability is that he is a record holder. He is also vice-president of the company that bestowed the records. Mildly suspicious. Sarwicked (talk) 14:22, 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 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ratifying your own records means any such claims cannot be verified independently from yourself, which means the record organization cannot be the sole source of information. - Mgm|(talk) 21:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could also be an elaborate hoax. How could we ever tell? Vartanza (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vague claims of notability unsubstantiated with reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete: I think this article is not delated. he is very genuine person and true. see references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.86.52 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnquist Blvd.[edit]

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

This road does not appear to be notable, and the article even says that it is a minor road. It also fails WP:STREET, as Mount Prospect, Illinois has about 50,000 citizens and there are already articles on three numbered highways which serve the village. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing to say, no indication this road has any special significance that the other several million side streets in America have. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:53, 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, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mfield (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability in the article. The closest thing to notability is this which essentially says a famr used ot be where the road is now. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 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 redirect to AlMaghrib Institute. MBisanz talk 07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Alshareef[edit]

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

No Credibility I really have no answer to what this article is doing on Wikipedia. It was created a couple of weeks ago and written as if it is a personal blog for a person with no notability, by one user who I suspect is the article's subject himself. I think this article should be deleted. Board56 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC) — Board56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this person does not appear to be notable in the light of WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think there's a pretty good consensus. This one is obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 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 keep. MBisanz talk 00:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlMaghrib Institute[edit]

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

No Credibility I really have no answer to what this article is doing on Wikipedia. It was created a couple of weeks ago and written as if it is a personal blog for a person with no notability, by one user who I suspect is the article's subject himself. I think this article should be deleted. Board56 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC) — Board56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The lack of citations is definitely an issue, but I can find sources like this with a Google search so the institute may have enough notability to avoid deletion.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:42, 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, — neuro(talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this flawed nomination--eh, nominator, care to actually check the article history? "Created a few weeks ago"? It's been around since 2006! Moreover, it's not about a person, and it certainly doesn't read like a blog. Admins, I propose that this AfD proposal is so flawed that it should be withdrawn, regardless of the article's merits. And even if the AfD continues to run, it doesn't stand much of a chance of success, given these Google News hits, which lists such articles as this one in the Washington Post. A bunch of right-wing websites refer to the institute as a Jihad school; surely that is almost a guarantee for notability. Then, in 2005 the school had 2800 students, according to the San Jose Mercury News. I hope that's enough. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User Board56 has made no edits outside of AlMaghrib Institute and Muhammad Alshareef, a person associated with the school whose article Board56 also put up for deletion--citing the exact same rationale, incidentally. It's a pretty blatant case of SPA. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I get a hint of spam from reading this article. Might just be me, but... Peridon (talk) 22:52, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lend america[edit]

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

Tagged for speedy as spam, yet tag has been repeatedly removed by multiple parties screaming "Ghits! It's notable!". Notability is not relevant here. This article is spam. DarkAudit (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was doing some New Page patrols when I came across this article. It has 43,400 Ghits which, if searched, show mentions of the firm by Reuters and other notable organisations. I have no personal interest in this article, but I believe that the speedy tag was slapped on too quickly by DarkAudit - hence I took it off, to allow further research. I strongly believe that DarkAudit needs to take a little more time before making a judgement, as he/she has been has been proved to be wrong at least twice just tonight - just look at my talk page. This editor left me two messages falsely claiming I had written the article! (All he/she needed to do was to take a quick look at the article's history!)-- Myosotis Scorpioides 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A textbook example of WP:GHITS there. At no point did I question the notability of the subject. The article was written as an advertisement. As spam. It's improved slightly since then, but it still looks rather spammy. DarkAudit (talk) 21:57, 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, — neuro(talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is absolutely relevant here, and this organisation is notable. If the current version is spam, fix it; AfD is not cleanup.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep--S Marshall, are mortgage lenders inherently notable? I was fully prepared to find dozens of Google News hits, but to my surprise I found only this one--fortunately for the joint, it's in the NYT, so I'm going to assume that the company is indeed notable. I had heard of them, for instance--that makes it notable in my book ;) Drmies (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt if being a mortgage lender is inherently notable. I think being a mortgage lender of this size is notable.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for me it doesn't pass WP:COMPANY ("significant coverage"). Also I don't know what "12th largest direct-to-consumer FHA lender" means so it's hard to judge the significance of this claim, especially without market share figures (isn't it a very concntrated market, so 12th may be pretty small?). NB Ghits may be particularly misleading in this case as mortgages are a high-value product and so affiliates may bump the hits a lot. Rd232 talk 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, weak keep. Rd232 talk 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"FHA lender" in the US means a lender whose loans are insured by the FHA. Direct-to-consumer lenders are the ones that lend to individual people by means of company representatives, rather than lending tranches of money on the national or international money markets by means of financial instruments such as credit-backed securities, and rather than acting through financial intermediaries or brokers, although a "direct-to-consumer"'s mortgage products might well be available through brokers as well. In other words, "Direct-to-consumer" means the kind of mortgage lender most people understand.
I think it passes WP:COMPANY because of innovation -- the first lender to run a paperless application system -- and impact on the economy. You're right to say it won't be a large company in terms of premises or number of employees (I'm guessing less than 1000 employees, and maybe less than 500), but it'll certainly be an outfit worth hundreds of millions of dollars.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I shouldn't be surprised if their mortgage book includes a fair proportion of credit-impaired people. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:29, 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 Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz talk 07:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical writing for the Web[edit]

Technical writing for the Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be entirely made of original research. Also, I don't see how this is encyclopedic. It seems to be more of a collection of tips on web design. EDIT: Looking back, it's not so much original research as a collection of random facts from various sources. KJS77 04:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does seem to be something of a how-to, and I doubt that there's any more agreement on how to write technical documents for the web than there is on writing elsewhere. WillOakland (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author is recommended to publish on an how-to site. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the inputs. This is my first article on Wikipedia and am orienting towards the appropriate content, presentation and formatting. My intent is to make this article encycolpedic. What I have put forth is just part of the overall content and am referring to around 20 authentic references in the area of Technical communication as regards to World Wide Web. I will be extending the article to comply with Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. You can either hold on to this starter page or go ahead and delete it, till I come up with the final content. Ashok Ambashanker 14:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have posted the revised version. Please review and if compliant to Wikipedia standards, kindly remove this article from the deletion list. Ashok Ambashanker 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO - perhaps it can be transwiki'd somewhere? Where do the howtos live anyway? Books? -- samj inout 03:34, 11 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, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, I can understand the argument for deletion in that this appears to be a novel synthesis of material from disparate sources, put together in such a way that it appears to constitute original research. But on the other hand, I can also see arguments to keep this: (1) I think it's a sin against our founding principles to remove well-sourced material from Wikipedia unless that material appears elsewhere on the site (see WP:PRESERVE), so if it's decided to delete the article, I would be grateful if the material could be userfied (either to the original author's wikipedia space or to mine); and (2) it should probably be reviewed by those interested in the Wikipedia manual of style to see if there's anything they can usefully incorporate.
The following remarks don't form part of an argument to keep the article, but I found it interesting, relevant and well-researched.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a guide to teach writers how to write for the web. I'd say move to Wikibooks. - Mgm|(talk) 20:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 23:36, 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 disambiguate. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parafaith Universe[edit]

Parafaith Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Not very notable nor important. ♪♫The New Mikemoraltalkcontribs 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to the two books in the series. They appear notable enough - but I don't see why we would need a very brief article on the duology as well as on the individual books. Incidentally, importance is not a criterion for notability. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 21:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The proper term for a series article would be Parafaith or Parafaith series, so the current article isn't needed as a likely search term. It is also doubtful that a barely notable series of two items needs a series article in the first place. – sgeureka t•c 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Having a page for just two books seems a bit odd. Would it be appropriate for someone to perhaps add in details about the series here, despite it only being two books thus far, and how the various social issues listed were addressed? Dream Focus 12:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - just make a disambig page, the series as a whole does not warrant a separate article. FingersOnRoids♫ 18:57, 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 of the debate was speedy keep. —Kirill Lokshin 16:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan[edit]

many of Turkish provinces listed in so called Kurdistan. Find a map and look it. There nowhere so called kurdistan and these provinces not anywhere but in Turkey. Please delete and lock this topic. This is an terrorist ideology which killed thousands of innocent people Uncloaker 14:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_14&oldid=1142644216"