Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 March 17 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 delete. No prejudice towards recreation in the future, should more reliable sources appear. henrik•talk 11:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congress Matters[edit]

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

Deleted as A7, and challenged. Non-notable blog. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This blog was created as a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging. It's a part of the DailyKos network of sites, including SB Nation. A quick Google Search of "Congress Matters" brings up plenty of sources, and in fact, punch that in under Google News and you can actually see that Google News cites this blog as a source it searches for news articles. I'm preplexed as to why this would make this blog non-notable. Now, there are other sites that are under the DailyKos umbrella, such as "Mother Talkers" and "Street Prophets", which are notable inasmuch as the blogging community go, but perhaps not enough for Wikipedia articles yet, anyway. This article and SB Nation are more than notable enough. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Daily Kos. There are probably enough reliable sources to establish notability, even though this blog is new. For example this, which is about the blog and it's editor. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Yes, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging team had initially thought about making this a subsect of the DailyKos page, but it seems to be notable enough to warrant it's own page, especially given the Google News citations. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article establishes no notability of its own through reliable sources. Possibly merge and redirect to Daily Kos--Sloane (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Knew about Daily Kos, but didn't know about this blog until finding this article. -74.242.254.23 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Usefulness or "liking the site" are no reasons for inclusion. Please, see WP:WEB.--Sloane (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article was only created yesterday, give the community some time to collect more sources. Via the Google Test, it's 60% as popular as Old New Thing Jwray (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient reliable sources to establish independent notability. Putting a few lines in the Daily Kos article would also be fine. This blog may someday be notable, but is not at the moment. Editors are always free to build articles in userspace with sufficient citations and notability established and then republish.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is f*cking two days old? This really is starting to smell like a duck ... campaign again blog articles. Blogs are still not evil and encyclopedic articles are perfectly acceptable. Articles less than 2 days old in particular are poor candidates for deletion. -- Banjeboi 07:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment whatever your feelings on the listing, that's not appropriate and I would hope you would reconsider and strike part of your language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet neither the edit history of the CSD nominator or the AFD one show much of a connection. Of course that's probably because I assume good faith and don't think that personal attacks are productive, at least without evidence of some kind. However, you can continue to attack every blog listed for deletion or every brand new article listed as related to the Motley Moose AFD if you feel that's productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm, you could assume good faith here, I'm neither pro or con blogs per se but I do have a wp:Brain and can smell WP:Ducks. In any case the acrimony that has plagued that AfD seems absent here which is a good thing, we'll see where it goes from here. -- Banjeboi 02:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the CSD nom I have no connection to, nor have ever heard of Motley Moose. Shumin's record is impeccable. Although he often doesn't CSD stuff that I think should be CSD'd, he's by no means in anybody's pocket here. Shumin saved the page from deletion. My CSD was after a previously successful CSD. A lot has come to light since then, so I won't comment on this AfD at all, but as Ricky says, assume good faith here. I don't have any stake in the issue, and I'm reasonably sure Shumin nor the original delete do either. Shadowjams (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think that user "Banjeboi" was referring to you, or Schumin. The only complaint I'd have about Schumin is that when I created this article, it got flagged for Speedy Delete before I could post the sandbox text in it; I explained it to him, he looked it over, gave it his okay, and went on his way- then it got deleted again, and I tried to explain that to him to no avail. Obviously, I was vindicated here, and I know he wasn't acting in bad faith, but some WP:AGF or WP:NORUSH toward me would have been nice. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My fault for assuming too much. Shadowjams (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Daily Kos. Probably keep as there does seem to be some independent notability, possibly though on Waldman. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- just added a source. The independent coverage is out there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we close this AfD? I think all the opinions to the contrary have changed their minds to Keep. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Same deal in general. Even if the nom withdraws their comments to keep, if there is even one delete vote we generally let the discussion play out for the five days. There are certainly exceptions but having more input isn't usually a bad thing. -- Banjeboi 12:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, or Merge and redirect to DailyKos - not notable on its own, just part of the DailyKos franchise. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is the fact that this blog is used by Google News to pull up news sources a notable thing, or not? I would think so... certainly, I don't know any other blogs that are referenced as news on Google News. Thoughts? Ks64q2 (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not. There's a fair number of them. Check out the requirements for being included -- the bar is set fairly low.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bali Ultimate. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem, from WP:WEB "should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" and there is some of that, despite being small and new. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bali Ultimate. I'm not convinced that there is enough independent coverage here to establish notability.Nrswanson (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per User:Orangemike. -- samj inout 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability isn't inherited from the parent blog. A mention in Daily Kos would be sufficient. ThemFromSpace 21:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the extensive coverage and the fact google news sources it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.38.54 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC) -->— 70.188.38.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Looking over the references and the limited amount of time the blog has existed, there does not appear to be enough information to determine real notability. Therefore, we delete for now and it can be recreated in the future if necessary. JRP (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technologies of political control[edit]

Technologies of political control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I stumbled upon this page and cleaned it up a bit, but I don't see any point to its existence nothing links to it and the original author has abondoned it as far as I can tell. Unless some conspiricy/anarchist/activist wants to take it over and make it beutiful Jmackaerospace (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it might appear to be just an accidental sequence of words in a report title, it is in fact a subject of ongoing discourse. [1] WillOakland (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention in an official report to the EU (if substantiated) imply that it is notable enough to warrant governmental attention, and therefore notable enough for Wikipedia. 69.210.42.241 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It: This article, though vague in it's current state, addresses an important socio-political issue and deserves attention within the Wikipedia project. I concur, that a topic that receives official mention in a governmental report, especially one with such deep implications for the future of our democratic and republican forms of government MUST be addressed in as much detail as possible. The article needs to be cleaned up. There is no justification for deletion nor does there exist a preponderance of supported arguments for deletion, which carry the burden, to justify such an action. --A. Poinçot (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any point to this nomination - just another case of WP:NOEFFORT. The topic seems quite notable and Wikipedia has no deadline. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just an outline, and ignored since 2004 except for bot-like edits. Although there is no deadline for improvement, this article is moribund. It needs more than clean-up, it needs to be written. If someone wants to write an article, let them start over. DGG (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not so sure about the notability, After all, it is a phrase that can be used of virutaly anything you care to point it at, so it is not surprising that it's been used a lot. Furthermore with that in mind, I see this as a set of things that can be too narrow or too large depending on what you define as a 'technology of polotical control'. Therefore a NPOV will be hard to achive.Jmackaerospace (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep someone has now posted a link to the EU paper, and while the whole thing is still paranoid ramblings there is enough data there to turn it into a proper article. It still need cleaning up, but is no loger bad enough to warant deletion.Jmackaerospace (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG.Nrswanson (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanka Ninova[edit]

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

Unfortunately, I can't find the evidence necessary for this article, imo, to pass WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Allventon (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with the above. 7triton7 (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First the wikilawyering bit: two albums on a well established label get her through WP:MUSICBIO criterion 5. The common sense argument is that any soloist for a national opera house is the kind of subject that an encyclopedia should cover. Google News gets some hits that confirm that she is a soloist and has toured internationally with the company, and here is a profile of her. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - soloist for a national opera is somebody one would expect to meet notability. The main issue here seems to be that the sources aren't in English which makes it hard for me to evaluate, but the Google search results seem to indicate that sourcing would be possible. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. As for evidence, she has an English language home page, which I added, and wikified a bit. It seems to be reliable enough for the Ottawa Classical Choir. --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I'm referring to the the reliability of her web page to be used as a reference, not her notability! :-) Let me expand that a bit - the site mostly refers to her in the third person, so it may not immediately obvious that this is, in fact, her site, and not just of some fan, except that the choir that she sings with links to it to describe her. --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 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 Keep all towns are inherently notable, no matter how prone their articles may be to vandalism. WP:INHERENT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dingus, Kentucky[edit]

Dingus, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, no reason for being included in an encyclopedia. Frequent target of vandalism, it appears never to have had any content beyond a single sentence, despite a surprisingly large edit history, which appears to be entirely vandalism and subsequent reverts. Pstanton (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I added a reference to show that the town exists, which is the criteria for any town to be included in Wikipedia, per WP:N. I might even suggest WP:SNOWBALL, the consensus on the inclusion of towns is pretty clear cut.. FingersOnRoids♫ 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes yes, anyone can go to Google and find an autogenerated advertising page. This is a more useful reference for AFD purposes, since it provides human confirmation that there is (or was) an actual community there. WillOakland (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fact that there is an advertising page pretty much shows that there is a town there. But I agree, its not a preferable reference. I just slapped it on there for the time being, so it could survive the afd. I think we can agree that regardless, this article is a keeper. FingersOnRoids♫ 00:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep - All towns are inherently notable, but is this a town, and does it exist? The fact that "dingus" is slang for "moron", "dumb", "idiot" etc, raises some questions in my mind as to whether or not the place even exists. According to Google maps, there is a Dingus, Kentucky (zip code 41472). But that doesn't mean it's a town. It could also just be a crossroads with a name, in which case it might not meet the notability guidelines. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at WillOakland's pdf source, and use the search function, you can see that a "Dingus Elementary School in Dingus, Kentucky" is mentioned in there. I believe that is enough evidence to verify that this town does exist. FingersOnRoids♫ 02:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Towns/villages are inherently notable regardless of size. Being a target of vandalism is not a proper reason to delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I believe that the article was created because an editor thought the name was cute, this is an inhabited (and rather remote) location on one of the smaller county roads. Mandsford (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's generally been held that all communities are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 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. Tone 11:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BRYAN BROOKS[edit]

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

NN high-school basketball player with alot of unsourced speculation. No evidence of meeting WP:BIO, should be speedied, but not a A7, Delete Secret account 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree there should be some way to speedy these puff pieces.Porturology (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. And again, we really should be able to speedy this stuff. --Pstanton (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - But I have to disagree with you two. If the author makes an assertion that the article is somewhat significant, speedying it would be unnecessarily WP:BITEY. If this kind of article was speediable, it couldpotentially drive away new, good faith editors who are just unfamiliar with wikipedia. This afd process shows that the reason their article was deleted is from a community consensus that it should be, not just a single editor who's using WP:IDONTLIKEIT. FingersOnRoids♫ 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - alleges notability, but is a big mess, which I've tagged. I suggest moving first, then re-listing. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see where notability is alleged anywhere in the article. There are a few news articles that mention his name, but this isn't enough to satisfy WP:ATHLETE or any other general criteria of notability. Teleomatic (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - The closest I see to an claim of notability (outside of, "he's played pro players once or twice") is the statement that he and a buddy:

    were included in the RIZE magazine at the beginning of the 2008-09 school year where they stated "we will work hard and be at the state championship"

    Except that I can't find a "RIZE magazine," and Google has no archived news sources containing that quote. So, maybe it's referring to RISE (magazine)? I can't find his name on that site, either. The "where he stands in the land" reference? That's a link to the front page of Rivals.com. From there you can get to a page where you can search 2009 high school basketball players by name—where he isn't found, either. End result: I see no claims to notability that actually exist. Why shouldn't it be speedied right now? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just deleted the Bryan Brooks Wilcox Tech Football Stats 08-09 reference, as the 5'9" football-playing Bryan Brooks from CT isn't the 6'3" basketball-playing Bryan Brooks from MD. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is definantely a good read it just has some rough edges, needs some editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.126.204 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet.[reply]
  • Delete obviously, per the above. Eusebeus (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if a high school athlete can qualify for inclusion and send out for a thorough sandblasting and copyedit. His work as player seems to get quite a bit of coverage.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]... No doubt he'll be in the pros or college circuit next year, but currently seems to be nudging on the plus side of WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: note that to meet the general guidelines for notability the coverage must be significant - most of these articles mention him in less than one sentence, the most significant coverage is three paragraphs about how he landed face first after making a slam dunk. Nowhere does it mention that he's considered pro-worthy. Teleomatic (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also note that #'s 1 and 2 are already in the article; #3 is a blog, and all the rest appear to be small community papers reporting on the local high school teams. If a name being mentioned a couple of times in a local paper solely for having played on a school team is grounds for GNG, we'll be deluged within a week. And I'll take you up on that "No doubt he'll be in the pros or college circuit next year"—as it says in the article, no college has asked him to sign a letter of intent, and it's getting late in the season. If he's actually talking about attending a JC or prep school (!) as the article says, it's unlikely that he'll ever make it to pro. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most high-school players make the news trivialy sentence wise as high-school sports are usually covered in the back of the local town newspaper. I checked right now on a google check for my cousin who was Third-Team All-County in baseball five years ago, 23 exact google news hits, all trivial (can't link who because of ED), and now he's a assistant manager of a store in Miami. If that's the case, many of my friends will have articles, as they played in the high-school's baseball, basketball, football teams, and got some slight coverage (sentence or so) in the box scores of those games, and all these ppl are now college students not playing sports or Division III athlete (in one case). Here in the United States, being a high-school athlete doesn't mean success, or even playing in sports. There has been heavy consensus in the past that even the best high-school athletes heading to college doesn't deserve articles. Secret account 12:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Really? Tis seems quite borderline at best and so poorly written, and the subject apparently so young, that holding off to see what media coverage they get over the next year or two might make sense. Otherwise the article is ____ was a notable high school basketball player which wouldn't seem to measure up. Perhaps a merge to their home high school may make more sense? I could be swayed per WP:Hey if they also starred in High School Musical -- Banjeboi 07:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable per WP:ATHLETE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and the article has almost nothing of value in it. Enigmamsg 05:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 20:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having played against some pros once doesn't transfer notability through osmosis. Fails standards of notability. DreamGuy (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. No offsetting high profile coverage of him that meets general notability requirements for biographies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE.Nrswanson (talk) 10:09, 21 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 The result was withdrawn by nominator. I was mistaken. Enigmamsg 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American High School (film)[edit]

American High School (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps it could be recreated with sources in a month or two? Enigmamsg 21:30, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Higher education timeline[edit]

Higher education timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate collection of information. Possibly just a replication of another list that already exists on Wikipedia. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see anything indiscriminate about this list. Sure it needs sourcing and other work but that is an editorial matter. If it duplicates another list then they can be merged. TerriersFan (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't really a "timeline" (where there is a relationship between any of the events), but a list of dates that selected universities were founded. Schools that date from the 15th Century and earlier are well described on List of oldest universities in continuous operation. The rest of the list is an editor's selection of a small fraction of the many institutions that were created in the later years. Given that there are thousands of universities around the world, trying to arrange them in chronological order would be a difficult task. Mandsford (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The list is too incomplete to make a useful article. The alternatives might be to rename to List of Universities by date of foundation, or to merge with List of oldest universities in continuous operation. CErtainly, we cannot keep this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incomplete is a reason for adding the others. Not the least indiscriminate, since it lists those that have Wikipedia articles (though many of the links need fixing or adding, and a few thousand need adding). Too long does not apply. We are not paper--though we might want to make subarticles as we get closer to completion. No job is too large, considering the number of editors. We probably have many thousands of active editors at universities, and they just need to add theirs. Or one of them can write a bot. I agree that it should be retitled, & we can discuss that. DGG (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT's rules on indiscriminate lists. It's just a list of trivia with no way to salvage it to make it an actual encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DreamGuy. Further, such a list seems odd since higher education institutions from different places/cultures do not necessarily share a connection in terms of development/historical context/standard of inclusion. It's a bit too broad of a topic to be of any use. Even if such a list were made complete it would be so large that it would be too difficult to navigate. A more useful list would be a timeline of higher education within a specific culture or geographical area. Nrswanson (talk) 10:18, 21 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. henrik•talk 12:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devoucoux[edit]

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

I added a prod tag a couple of weeks ago, but it was contested and removed, with the edit summary "add external link - remove Prod - long term article deserves discussion". The external link that was added was a user review from a blog/sales site. I was not able to find reliable third party sources for this article, and the only two other links are to the site of the brand in question and another sales site. Dana boomer (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not appear to be WP:CORP LetsdrinkTea 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment certainly notability is not established but I suspect notability might actually exist. I'm going to try to rescue this one. --Boston (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - a quick google search tells me this just might be a notable company. Here are a few, perhaps non-stellar sources, but I think together they do indicate some degree of notability. [11], [12], [13], [14]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The company is a leader in its field. I have added content, references and external links to the article, which establish the company's notability. This aricle is well worth rescuing. Unionsoap (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This company is a world leader in its industry, and that claim is sourced in the article. Kingturtle (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. three wikiprojects notified of this discussion. -- Banjeboi 10:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. Per WP:CSB amongst other issues. Clearly this company is more intent on producing product than actually getting media coverage. A quick look at their website shows a press agent's wet dream of possibilities with Olympic and elite riders using their product yet all they have is wimpy press alerts and popup box details. Give a saddle to his royal hunkiness and land a picture in some of the newsprint outlets. If someone can point to the equestrian trade media that may help here as well. From what I can tell they certainly seem to be a leading manufucturer of customized saddles. More sourcing would help though. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree and suspect it's a super-snobby French saddler that don't need no stinking adverts (or badgers). Just imagine how upset they'll be to find themselves on Wikipedia sharing server space next to Dog poop girl. --Boston (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reliable sources have been presented that establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the sources prove it exists but do not prove notability per our standards. Should be some reason to list it in an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. How do the sources that I pointed to above not prove notability per our standards? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because most every business in the world can claim some minor coverage, especially in trade-specific magazines and other publications that print short clips often from press releases. What is entirely lacking is anything at all specifying why this company would be notable to our readers in any way whatsoever. Existence is not notability. If this company were indeed a leading company in any field instead of just making that claim itself and it getting picked up in reports then we should have some unambiguous sources to that end. DreamGuy (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that I linked are in L'Express, the French equivalent of Time, and Les Échos, the equivalent of The Wall Street Journal, not in trade specific magazines, and they run to over 500 words each completely dedicated to the article subject - not short clips. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I think the sources found do indicate notability, however, in its current state the article reads too much like self-promotion.Nrswanson (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think the sources indicate notability, that's a reason for keeping the article. The promotional tone can be addressed through editting. That's what the {{advert}} tag is for. -- Whpq (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After looking over the sources and the text, I don't believe this company satisfies our notability guidelines for corporations. I admit that it has a relatively large place in a niche industry, but that's not what's important here. Further involvement in world horse events could confer notability and at that time the article can be recreated. JRP (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above per corp. Eusebeus (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep certainly an esoteric company but seems to have coverage in a range of sources and be prominent in its field (I can't ride a horse to save my life though) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:23, 22 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly Vodka[edit]

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

Advert of a nonnotable brand of vodka - 7-bubёn >t 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete And yes, this probably could be speedied as an advert. --Pstanton (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. A consumer product, there may be independent reviews in reliable sources. Might be best served with an article about the distillery. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article in present form or move to Firefly Distillery. Firefly Sweet Tea Vodka Martinis are O'Charley's Signature martini right now (I had one with dinner tonight ;-). The Firefly distillery web site lists that they have distributors in 50 states. I think this is enough evidence of widespread product placement to make them notable enough for an article. I'll clean up the article tomorrow. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think moving the article to Firefly Distillery is best to cover the whole product line and the history of the distillery. I started cleaning up the article. I'll leave comments on the article talk page as I go. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found some good sources for the article. I added them to the article talk page until I have time to do do the re-write, Reference list. The New York Times did a review of Firefly Sweet Tea Vodka on February 10, 2009. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. References collected by FloNight show this is a two-man semi-manual operation, in no way notable. There are zilions of names products around. Of course, they are mentioned in some newspapers or other. A promotional spin is not claim for notability of a product. Laudak (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FloNight's references. It doesn't matter that this is a two-man operation, what does matter is that it has gotten half a dozen independent press articles about it. Being non-trivially "mentioned in some newspapers or other" (or, as in this case, having entire articles dedicated to you) is what Wikipedia:Notability is all about, not what you are, but whether the world writes about you. --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign workers in Kuwait[edit]

Foreign workers in Kuwait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined the speedy deletion as copyvio per {{StateDept}} and also the speedy deletion for notability because it's not a person, company or website; but I think the tagger was probably right that this article needs work to survive. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I deleted the link to HRW.org. It took you to a page that asked for donations, and had a link to "documents", giving the impression that this text was theirs; it isn't, it's public domain. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The corresponding piece of {{StateDept}} is called "Human trafficking", not "foreign workers", hence wrong subject. Furthermore, this page is not an encyclopedic entry: it has no factual material, no dates, no references, just general statement that Kuwait sucks in this respect. CIA may collect and distribute their info as they with, but in wikipedia there is a commons sense of what constitutes an encyclopedic entry. "Public domain" and "American Gov't" is not a ticket to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mirror of .gov domain. - 7-bubёn >t 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unreferenced, non-encyclopedic and mislabeled article. Wikipedia is not a mirror site for govt reports. Not seeing anything worth keeping here.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. Penney (disambiguation)[edit]

J. C. Penney (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary dab. All of these are just variations on the main topic, and are already linked from J. C. Penney. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Necessary dab. Especially for "J.C.Penney building" - 7-bubёn >t 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all dabs are keep, IMHO, unless they link to only one or two articles. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form, but if it wasn't for the buildings, it would be a delete per Bearian's rationale. Maybe move to JC Penny Building? Recognizance (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would accept a move to J. C. Penney Building since there are multiple buildings with that name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like everyone agrees that's what to keep the dab for. The company and person already dab between one another, so they can be taken out per your nom (other than as the namesake of the buildings of course) when it's moved. Recognizance (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I'm trying to say. James Cash Penney is already linked from JCPenney, so he doesn't really need to be in the dab. Just disambiguating among the multiple "JCPenney Building"s is all we really need Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm new but WP:MFD says it's for "problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main namespace" (emphasis mine) while WP:XFD says AFD is for "all encyclopedia articles except for redirects" (emphasis not mine). So the IP might be mistaken, . We all agree on what to do at any rate. Recognizance (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since every one of these articles either is or should be linked directly from the main article on the department store chain anyway, the dab page isn't actually necessary at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 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 no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unholy Alliance (geopolitical)[edit]


Unholy Alliance (geopolitical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly unholy combination of WP:NEO, WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAP, etc. Avi (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nom. -- Avi (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ...though Israel is tangentially implicated, this article provides useful info on the Non-Aligned Movement workings and positions and yet another example of the increasingly common usage "unholy alliance." As more info comes to light, it will grow. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There is the barest of justifications to keep this article as it currently stands, as the use of "unholy alliance" to refer to any group of two or more countries that stand in opposition to any policy is fairly routine, though there is one source to support the usage. Other sources are available here, this book and this one all appear to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Alansohn.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn. There should be an article about the meaning of Unholy Alliance in the context of (geo)politics, but the present content discusses only one of several unholy alliances. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title is too loaded for NPOV and this article does not discuss the topic in a general way. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patently unencyclopedic. Eusebeus (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. A perfectly notable concept/phrase which a good article can delve into. Here's 1100+ searchable online books that may help. -- Banjeboi 08:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nom mentions all relevant policies. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Note, more encyclopedic rewrite. Remember, this is still really a "stub" for a larger article which having the stub enables. BTW, how can it be NEO, SYNTH, or SOAP if used or referenced in more than 1100 books? -74.162.153.126 (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is User:65.246.126.130. Opinions should only be made once and IPs should not be used to manipulate Afd discussions. -- Avi (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From Deletionist Shereth (below): "The motivation of the contributors to a debate is not relevant to the veracity of their observations." -74.242.254.148 (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, goodie, it's User:Mbhiii in disguise. Avi isn't calling anyone's motivation into question, just pointing out that you ought not come in under the guise of an anonymous editor and make multiple !votes. Pretty simple, really. Shereth 02:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock-puppets, flesh-puppets, mil-ind-com cabals? 1000 professionals work in these halls. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:SOCK, meat puppets are treated the same as sockpuppets. -- Avi (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's a refine book search using Unholy alliance in the book title. IMHO, this supports that the concept is certainly notable and examples come secondary to the concept. -- Banjeboi 10:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear-cut case of original research. I hate to break it to the above, but showing up in multiple book titles does not entitle a phrase to an encyclopedia entry. The arguments being made here were trotted out a long time ago (for what was more a more admittedly POV version) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unholy Alliance and the same counter-arguments apply today. This does not meet inclusion criteria. Shereth 13:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We write encyclopedic articles on notable topics, concepts and even words. The current version has problems which are fixable. Sourcing exists in bucketfuls so all that remains is clean-up which is not a reason to delete. -- Banjeboi 13:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not require a lesson on what we do or do not write articles on. Popularity != notability != merits an article. It is my observation that the article fails our requirements regarding no original research. If the article can be rescued then by all means rescue it. I do not share your optimism, however, and maintain that it does not meet minimum standards. Shereth 02:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some work, certainly... but not worth a deletion. C'mon, guys, try to fix things instead of throwing it away, right? ;) Ks64q2 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an expression. Mentioning when it was used, for any undesirable alliance, makes sense, I suppose. And who is calling who by that phrase? Certainly those connected don't refer to themselves that way. What is the purpose of this article? Just to explain what the expression means, and when it has been used throughout history, and by who, and towards who it was directed at, and perhaps even why? Or is it meant to be something more? Dream Focus 02:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, indisputable. Agree, especially since use is so wide-spread. Vast numbers of literate and academic people referring to obscure alliances. True. To point up its common geopolitical uses and perhaps identify obscure alliances that other articles miss. That alone suffices. There is room here for identifying obscure geopolitical alliances, in fact, and providing reasons for the obscuring. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please *Keep this article & topic. I saw this some time ago as well. In this country we are allowed to have such discussions & articles in print. There is sufficient, reputable verification & reference. Please keep!! Very interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.152.225 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a sock/meat puppet of User:65.246.126.130 and cannot have their opinion counted for more than once. -- Avi (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, from the volume and variety, there has to be at least several editors at User:65.246.126.130. Secondly, there are roughly 1,000,000 people in the Research Triangle area, and I have no idea at all who this last person is. -MBHiii (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, really, that this IP address has an amazing habit of editing articles that you have edited, yet you claim that it must not be you. Do you really expect anyone to accept it as pure coincidence that someone else using an IP in the same range as yours has the same editing style, the same interests in terms of articles to edit, and even magically stumbles upon this very same discussion regarding a pet topic of yours? What a fantastic coincidence! Please, do us all a favor by logging in when you edit - or at the very least, when you participate in discussions. Shereth 01:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources benjiboi showed make it clearly notable as well as encyclopedic. The article as stands isn't a POV fork and doesn't have to become one. ThemFromSpace 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrash[edit]

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

Delete this was deleted before and now it's back in slightly different form but the same group with the same lack of notability. Sourced primarily to youtube and group's own website. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Tag for WP:Cleanup and more sources. Looking at the article I find a number of reliable sources (Dallas Morning News, Salt Lake Tribune, The Berkeley Daily Planet, Wall Street Journal, BBC News), and see the SPS only used as WP:V. Doing a cursory search on Google Books and Google News there appears to be a number of additional reliable sources that show meeting WP:GNG. Granted these need to be gone through, but the volume suggests notability. It must be noted that 1) the last article by this name was over 2 years ago where only 2 editors chose to !vote at the then AfD, and 2) additional sources are now available since that earlier deletion. I have no idea how the earlier may have been written, but this version looks to have met concerns. Issues with this article can be addressed without a deletion based upon a few poorer sources or the deletion of a article by this name 27 months ago. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:ORG, and the original deletion decision was incorrect. THF (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE. The article was easily improvable as MichaelQSchmidt points out and was improved now. Having coverage in newspapers and suchlike establishes notability quite well. SoWhy 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tagged this for rescue, but looking at the history this does not even seem to have been necessary; the nominated version contained this ref, which is a three page article exclusively about the subject in a mainstream, high-circulation newspaper, satisfying beyond doubt the general notability guideline. The other sources added, mentioned by Michael Q. Schmidt above, only underline this. As SoWhy notes, issues with the article could easily have been rectified through normal editing. I notice that the article was not tagged for notability nor was a discussion about notability initiated on the talkpage; either of these steps would have negated the need for a deletion discussion. The nomination is only a critque of the past and then-present state of the article, and did not address it's potential. I would urge the nominator to follow WP:BEFORE and use AfD as a last resort in future. Skomorokh 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the 16 references, I see 3 YouTube links, 4 links to the groups' websites, 6 trival mentions ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), 1 blog ([21]), 1 book I can't check and 1 proper article at the Washington Times. I think it fails WP:NOTE, not enough significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources has been shown.--Sloane (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With respects to Sloane, per the requirements of WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive", and "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred", ignoring the in-depth coverage for a moment, the "mentions" are less than significant but still slightly more than trivial listings. Both significant and minor have been provided. Addressing the SPS or Youtube as the WP:Verifications as required by WP:ORG are matters for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple, one sentence mentions are almost per definition trivial. Nobody is saying anything about sources having to be exclusive but they do have to provide a certain level of coverage to prove notability. And again, there's only a single proper source here. WP:NOTE and WP:WEB require multiple.--Sloane (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little misleading, Sloane; the wording of WP:NOTE is "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." So your stance is based on personal preference rather than requirement. The point of the guideline is that the sources have to add up to a decent-length fully-verified article, which is what has been achieved here. Regards, Skomorokh 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, guidelines are clear. Multiple significant sources are required. Here, we have only one significant source. If we had two, maybe you would have had an argument. But seeing as we only have once, it's clear this subject fails WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...I just quoted you the guideline, which said multiple sources were "preferred" not "required"; what gives? Skomorokh 21:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Sources, as in the plural of source. Also, further: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic."--Sloane (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) Mr, Sloane, in taking a deeper look at those "mentions", I find a collective body that combines to show notability in actions and in news coverage in relationship to what is being reported overall and by whom. In the many of the cites you call trivial, the organization is spoken of directly or in in context to the greater topic being reported:
  1. Dallas News, in an article about reaction to Michael Moore's Sicko, "...Bureaucrash, an international activist group based in Washington D.C., along with members of the Americans for Prosperity, and the Moving Picture Institute showed up at a D.C. premiere carrying signs saying, 'Socialism Kills,' and 'Guaranteed health care is a Guaranteed Failure'"
  2. The Salt Lake Tribune, in a realted article about public reaction to Sicko, "CEI is supporting a hip-looking website called BureauCrash, which boasts of an "international network of pro-freedom activists works to change the political ideology of our generation through creative activism." The group staged a protest outside the Washington, D.C., premiere of "Sicko," and aligned themselves with two other groups - The Americans for Prosperity Foundation (which is closely affiliated, according to SourceWatch, with the anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum) and the Moving Picture Institute's FreeMarketCure.com website." and "...The funny thing is that CEI has made such a name for itself as a corporate shill that it has to create BureauCrash - with its cool Trotskyite graphics and YouTube-like video links - to hide CEI's hand in pushing its corporate message. You know you're failing as a front group when you have to form your own front group."... a bit more than a trivial "one sentence"
  3. The Berkeley Daily Planet, in an article about protests at a Libertarian conference, "Nearby, Libertarian counterprotesters, calling themselves Bureaucrash, held signs calling for 'free speech'"
  4. BBC News, in an article about Libertarians and the G8 conference, "As usual, the libertarians at Samizdata take a different approach, trying to shout above 'the din of idiotarian drum banging' to emphasise the role played by corrupt African states and arguing for removal of African government for solving African problems, and showcasing a provocative poster from the anti-statists Bureaucrash which features a starving child with the slogan "Socialism Kills - Free Markets Feed"
  5. Wall Street Journal, in an article about John McCain,"Later Mrs. Gramm went to the Mercatus Center in suburban Virginia, a thundering fortress of deregulatory theory. And here we glimpse another promising avenue of any investigation of the laissez-faire faith: the market ideology industry in Washington. Any proper assessment of this industry would also include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, FreedomWorks, the American Enterprise Institute, and the minor stars in the libertarian firmament, including my favorite, Bureaucrash, where punk rock meets the gold standard."
  6. "Drugs into Bodies" ISBN 0275983250, speaks of the group's emergence.
  7. "Thinker, Faker, Spinner, Spy" ISBN 0745324444, speaks of their "mission" when writing about corporate spin.
  8. "Iain Dale's Guide to Political Blogging in the Uk" ISBN 1905641621 includes them.
  9. And of course, The Washington Times provides an in-depth article about the organization and its founder.
So in my own seeing that this organization is definitely getting world-wide public recognition for their actions, both positive and negative, as establishing notability for the article, I will have to politely disagree with you. Again, the article would benefit from cleanup, but its deletion does not improve wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1-single sentence, 2-blog, 3-single sentence, 4-single sentence, 5-single sentence, 6-single paragraph, 7-single sentence (barely), 8-single sentence, 9-sole proper article. So yes, only one proper source. No notability established.--Sloane (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:V, I think this is a fine addition to Wikipedia. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per WP:NOT. TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT...what? How exactly does it fall within WP:NOT and since when is WP:NOT a speedy deletion reason? SoWhy 17:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The two book references and the Washington Times article seem to pass the wording at the notability. The article could use some (read: any) balance, but the references establish notability, and deleting it is not going to improve the article. T L Miles (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing and notability seemed to have been met. -- Banjeboi 08:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sloane's analysis of the available "sources". Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough to meet guidelines. --H8erade (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sloane. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can see both sides of this, and some of the references don't really pass muster, but I think the Washington Times one (in particular) does.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:26, 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 merge, with the consent of the nominator.[22]. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 23:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Eyre[edit]

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

Delete minor coverage for local protests but no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. His main claim to fame is in connection with the group whose article is nominated above for deletion, which has already been deleted once. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jori Tokyo[edit]

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

This is a young artist with some local exhibitions, but no identifiable notability beyond that. There are no references at this point and none seem forthcoming at this time. A google search reveals only the usual myspace/facebook/blog hits, with no independent coverage. Also of note, the artist herself, as the editor Christina Staub is using Wikipedia to attempt to establish notability, by adding her pseudonym to various inappropriate lists (ie. Fluxus). Christina Staub claims the authorship of this image, uploaded as a Jori Tokyo work freshacconci talktalk 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A7. R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva touch rugby[edit]

Geneva touch rugby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sports league ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete lacks notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete regardless of whether it's notable or not, because this is advertising ("we are in the process of signing up people/teams to participate") Mandsford (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete either for advertising or just notability. Either way, it should burn. --Numyht (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winter carnival at michigan tech[edit]

Winter carnival at michigan tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Already covered in Michigan Tech article, does not need its own article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable enough outside the campus for a separate article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons stated. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. twirligigT tothe C 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eveda[edit]

Eveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete: Verifiable notability comes before Wikipedia article, not the other way around (particularly when there are WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues too). User:Eveda previously contested a prod but it was eventually listed for AfD after being reported at WP:COIN. -- samj inout 17:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not appear to meet the notability standards, Top Google hits for this company are its own web site and the Wikipedia article. No hits on Google News. --Ckatzchatspy 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[www.eveda.org] - MULTIMEDIA EBOOK New creativity - approaches. Electronic, network creativity. Merge of different art forms. The literature, music, the fine arts and mastery of the actor ... [www.eveda.org]/ - 53k - Cached - Similar pages [www.eveda.org] - EBOOK TRAILERS New creativity - approaches. Electronic, network creativity. Merge of different art forms. The literature, music, the fine arts and mastery of the actor ... [www.eveda.org/trailer.html] - 27k - Cached - Similar pages More results from www.eveda.org » Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page for eveda.org What is the current listing status for eveda.org? ... Over the past 90 days, eveda.org did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of ... google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=eveda.org/ - 5k - Cached - Similar pages Eveda.org coupons, Coupon Codes and eveda Discount Coupons Eveda.org coupons and coupon codes. Find latest eveda online coupons at deals365 .us. Use eveda discount coupons, eveda Structure promo codes, promotions, ...

[www.deals365.us/index.php?action=mer&merid=12813] - 29k - Cached - Similar pages Eveda.org, electronic publishing house, , Address, Phone, mail SectorPages is a Business Directory with sectors and companies profiles.

[www.sectorpages.com/r/28573/Eveda-org.html] - 16k - Cached - Similar pages CyberRead – Search for Eveda org. CyberRead carries over 75000 of your favorite books from both major and independent publishers for your PDA and PC. Buy eBooks (e-books) in popular formats.

[www.cyberread.com/publisher/5202/eveda_org/] - 25k - Cached - Similar pages Bookhabit - Collection of photopoems By eveda.org - New creativity ... Bookhabit.com enables authors to self-publish works online for free. The site focuses on the long tail of books creating an online library of unpublished ...

[www.bookhabit.com/book_details.php?book_id=547] - 39k - Cached - Similar pages Eveda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Multimedia EBook (Eveda) is a E-Book format created by Eveda.org in 2007 for Electronic publishing. Eveda is used for representing multi-dimensional ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eveda - 32k - Cached - Similar pages Eveda.org. Click here to visit "Eveda.org. - Digital Publishing House With Specialization On Multimedia Ebooks."

[www.guidetoebookmarketing.com/products/cpages/eveda75172.html] - 2k - Cached - Similar pages Multimedia EBook (Eveda) a new format of EBook - Free-Press ... World Wide Web (www.eveda.org) October 15, 2008 -- The first online publication of Multimedia EBook (Eveda). The colorful variety of photos and pictures, ...

[www.free-press-release.com/news/200903/1236791848.html] - 27k - Cached - Similar pages Digg - Who dugg or blogged: www.eveda.org Combining possibilities of several media (sound, text, image, dynamics, interactivity) the EBook has received ability to influence the reader on all levels ...

[digg.com/arts_culture/www_eveda_org/who] - 30k - Cached - Similar pages Perfect Woman ... edition also AVAILABLE FREE. ebook Perfect multimedia woman eveda. ... EBOOK (EVEDA) *SENSATION OF THE WOMAN ISBN 978‐3‐941157‐34‐7 www.eveda.org ...

[www.scribd.com/doc/12273133/Perfect-Woman] - 68k - Cached - Similar pages Multimedia Ebook. Eveda. Drakosha - Video video edition of Multimedia EBook by Eveda.org. From eveda75172 More Art & Animation · Convolution Examples and Convolution Integral 07:20 ...

[www.metacafe.com/watch/1839854/multimedia_ebook_eveda_drakosha/] - 78k - Cached - Similar pages 2009 February « Eveda’s Blog VORSCHAU VIDEO-EDITION MULTIMEDIA EBOOK, BALD IN WWW.EVEDA.ORG ... New page with free multimedia Ebooks published by publishing house Eveda.org. site screen ...

[eveda.wordpress.com/2009/02/] - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Eveda’s Blog Filed under: multimedia — eveda @ 5:59 pm. VORSCHAU VIDEO-EDITION MULTIMEDIA EBOOK, BALD IN WWW.EVEDA.ORG. more about "PFORZHEIM", posted with vodpod ...

[eveda.wordpress.com/] - 59k - Cached - Similar pages More results from eveda.wordpress.com » Eveda.org. Digital Publishing House With Specialization On Multimedia Ebooks.Read more: Eveda.org.

[ervbnfghmv.com/evedaorg/] - 9k - Cached - Similar pages VENUS DOOM (EVEDA) by ALEX PROST (Software) in Media & Design Copyright: © 2008 eveda.org Standard Copyright License. Language: Russian. Country: Germany. Edition: eveda edition. Download $20.24 Add to Cart. (6298 kb) ...

[www.lulu.com/content/3556434] - 33k - Cached - Similar pages Multimedia Psy-Test. Can I Love? - Free-Press-Release.com 18 Mar 2009 ... World Wide Web (www.eveda.org) March 18, 2009 -- The first online publication of new series Multimedia EBook (Eveda). ...

[www.free-press-release.com/news/200903/1237398715.html] - 25k - Cached - Similar pages TrailerSpy - Watch, Upload, Rate, and Share Movie Trailers Member Info; Profile. Hello. I'm eveda . Last Login: 14 days ago. Joined: 23 days ago. Website: http://www.eveda.org. Country: Germany. Latest Video ...

[www.trailerspy.com/users/eveda] - 28k - Cached - Similar pages Bookhabit - Where Books Are Discovered Author Profile (eveda, Germany) ... Make a fate, 2008-06-19. The collection of stories 2, 2008-06-19. Eveda-Metamorphosis, 2008-08-14 ... www.eveda.org ...

[www.bookhabit.com/authorprofile.php?author_habitname=ZXZlZGE=] - 48k - Cached - Similar pages YouTube - PFORZHEIM, BADEN-WURTENBEG, DEUTSCHLAND VORSCHAU VIDEO-EDITION MULTIMEDIA EBOOK, BALD IN WWW.EVEDA.ORG. ... ORG. VORSCHAU VIDEO-EDITION MULTIMEDIA EBOOK, BALD IN WWW.EVEDA.ORG ...

[www.youtube.com/watch?v=EedvpvaodBw] - 80k - Cached - Similar pages Sensation of the woman You buy and immediately download not only the EBook with flipping pages, but also musical and graphic level of emotions of the autor. By www.Eveda.org ...

[www.buy-ebook.com/multimedia-ebook-by-eveda/] - 37k - Cached - Similar pages Woman Metamorphosis. By Georgy Stenkin - Multimedia Ebook. - Video VORSCHAU VIDEO-EDITION MULTIMEDIA EBOOK, BALD IN WWW.EVEDA.ORG. From More Art & Animation · Convolution Examples and Convolution Integral 07:20 ...

[www.metacafe.com/watch/1837260/woman_metamorphosis_by_georgy_ stenkin_multimedia_ebook/] - 81k - Cached - Similar pages EVEDA75172 - Multimedia EBook (Eveda). [ web top site directory ] 2008-11-23, Eveda.org Marketplace. Multimedia Fiction Ebooks. ... 2008-11-03, Eveda.org. Digital Publishing House With Specialization On Multimedia Ebooks. ...

[www.cb-analytics.com/product.php?id=EVEDA75172] - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Yudu - Personal Digital Library & Publishing / Reading Community Username: Eveda. Location: Germany. My Library: http://www.yudu.com/library/9846 /Eveda-s-Library. My Home Page: http://www.eveda.org ...

[www.yudu.com/library/9846/Eveda-s-Library] - 50k - Cached - Similar pages Your Green Review » Blog Archive » Green Halloween Guide Check out Freecycle.org for costumes and a way to recycle your costumes after Halloween. .... Eveda.org. | 7Wins.eu Says: […] No Pasa Nada ... [yourgreenreview.com/2008/10/green-halloween-guide/] - 25k - Cached - Similar pages Free Article Directory - Author Information for Georgy Stenkin Website: www.eveda.org. Memorable Quote 1: The woman cannot be understood, it is possible to feel only. Memorable Quote 2: Author Comment / Biography: ...

Georgy%20Stenkin - 50k - Cached - Similar pages VENUS DOOM (E-book - $3.00) MULTIMEDIA EBOOK by EVEDA.ORG incl. VIDEO-EDITION and MULTIMEDIA INTRO You buy and immediately download not only the EBook with flipping pages, ...

e-library.net/VENUS-DOOM__ebooks14376.htm - 35k - Cached - Similar pages Book Sphere: eveda's items eveda's items. 1. Multimedia EBook(Eveda) - Perfect Woman by Georgy Stenkin (www .eveda.org). Preview for Multimedia EBook - Sensation of the Woman ...

[www.booksphere.net/users/eveda/items] - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

it only 3 page from Top Google for eveda.org

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eveda (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: I have moved this from the top of the page. Please follow convention and add your comments to the foot of the page. They will be read. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[7] for advice on where to look for sources. Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eveda (talk • contribs) 18:02, March 20, 2009

  • Delete as spamvertising of nonnotable company. DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spamvertising is the practice of sending E-mail spam, advertising a website. In this case, it is a portmanteau of the words "spam" and "advertising".

It also refers to vandalizing wikis, blogs and online forums with hyperlinks in order to get a higher search engine ranking for the vandal's website. Spamvertisers insert links to their websites (typically, sites purporting to sell some commercial product) and add keywords of common or related searches. The apparent goal is that a search engine will find the vandalized page full of links and improve the popularity rating of the pages to which they link. This is typically done by automated editing programs which look for editable text fields in web forms and automatically fill them in with web links. The links typically lead to pills, porn and poker sites.

Most legitimate website providers do not tolerate this practice, and will delete any site that has been spamvertised.

This practice has led to many editable online resources employing anti-spam countermeasures, including the use of captchas to prevent automated editing.

from Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eveda (talk • contribs) 18:04, 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 merge to Game Boy Advance by Elm-39 per personal initiative. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 16:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of gameboy advance colors[edit]

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

Moved this info to the Game Boy Advance article; the subject has no need for its own article to begin with. Elm-39 - T/C 16:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, then delete Should be in the GBA article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect until the article is more than just a laundry list and notability is shown. ThemFromSpace 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Themfromspace. No need for a separate article --Numyht (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – lack of verifiability. I cannot find, even via reliable primary sources like nintendo.com, anything establishing what colors the GBA came in. (Note: I am very well aware that the GBA, in which I went through a couple when I owned one, was sold in many colors, but that has to be shown.) MuZemike 19:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete - I don't think this is a real plausible search term. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – merge and delete goes against the GFDL. MuZemike 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt for Dracula(2009 film)[edit]

The Hunt for Dracula(2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A PROD tag was removed with no improvement. There are no reliable sources present, notability is neither asserted nor obviously present, apparently this doesn't meet WP:NFF or WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. A Google search was difficult because of the common nature of the title but, coupled with the names of individuals said to be involved, as near as I can tell this is an amateur film that will only be seen on YouTube, etc.

    • Comment A deleted article by the same author indicates that the lead actress is a high school student, so I'm more certain that this is a direct-to-YouTube production. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced article about a future film that won't be notable when/if it is released. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no indication this is going to comply with the notability requirements. PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (maybe speedy), not notable, no soucing, a total mess. TheAE talk/sign 18:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - doesn't appear to exist outside WP, speedy as spam if not actually hoax. Rd232 talk 20:48, 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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero: Van Halen[edit]

Guitar Hero: Van Halen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed WP:PROD - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we don't deal in rumours. Nancy talk 16:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No prejudice against recreation once a reliable source (that is, in this case, not a rumour mill) can be found. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the rolling stones magazine link on the talk page? α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 20:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That source states plainly that it is reporting a rumour, thereby making it unacceptable here. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article goes above and beyond the "beta/demo" and "before the game has come out" cases; we don't even know if it's actually in production ("rumored to be"?). Elm-39 - T/C 17:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poor Sources, and Wikipedia doesn't deal with rumours --Numyht (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why the template {{futuregame}} and others are used. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 20:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Future games template is for game that will happen porviding that they can be sourced. This however isnt. --Numyht (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The rumors are unavoidable, but there's no need for a game page until there's a much more reliable source to confirm this is in the works. (It's also rumored under a different name as well). A protected redirect to Guitar Hero would be reasonably advisable. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystal ball. MuZemike 19:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL T-95 (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep Has sources and is going to come out. See my contest of the speedy on the talk page. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 20:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Every source I can find prefaces with "reportedly" or "rumour has it", which does not qualify as reliable IMO. No prejudice at all against recreation when there is an actual announcement. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 03:44, 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 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gore[edit]

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

This article was already nominated for deletion before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Gore, though as the original creator I was never nominated and thus didn't get a vote. I am of the belief I should never have created this article, as Gore clearly fails to pass WP:ATHLETE. Gore was a non-notable college player and signed with the Miami Dolphins as an undrafted free agent. He was cut the first day of camp for being out of shape and, according to a guy I know who was also on the team, Gore has since retired. This seem to be true, as Gore has yet to sign anywhere else (NFL, CFL, AFL, af2, etc.). Gore isn't notable and never will be. His page will never be more than it is now, and he current isn't notable enough to be here. ►Chris NelsonHolla! 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP I believe the article should be retained as the subject does hold notability. Puca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep He was signed, and there appear to be enough sources. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I re-created the article. I decided to be bold after I saw that the original nomination had only two !votes and no exposure to the project that covers the field. Recently, two far less notable athletes (Gatena and Miller) were deleted after lengthy debate, one of which took three nominations before finally being deleted.
Here's my rationale for re-creation: According to WP:ATH, "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." For American football, this highest amateur level is Division I FBS. Not only did Dan Gore play for a Division I FBS team, Boise State, but he was a starter. The two previously mentioned deletions were both walk-ons, and that was the rationale for which they were deleted.
Additionally, I think Gore meets WP:N for coverage in the reliable sources that I added to the article when I recreated it. I think these are the three most important ones for establishing this in accordance with WP:N:
The article is currently very short right now, as that is the way it was when originally deleted, minus the "External links" section. It could be easily be expanded to a couple paragraphs with the information available there, however. Notwithstanding, potential length of an article (or lack) is not a reason itself for deletion. Open a paper encyclopedia and one will find many, many, many articles of only a few sentences. Strikehold (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article was deleted on March 9th. I believe Gore fails WP:Athlete as he has not played in the professional game. Amateur level surely refers only to those sports that do not have a professional game. Notability seems very limited. Parslad (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, no, it does not "surely" refer only to sports without a professional level. There is absolutely no wording to that effect in WP:ATH. Aside from that, he is notable due to the independent third-party coverage in the reliable sources referenced above. Strikehold (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK true enough, I think it's a fair inference however. There is a professional league, and he hasn't played in it though. As to notability, the New York Times' article lists Gore, but does not discuss him in any way. Otherwise, minor mentions of local interest only. Parslad (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for now. He still could have a professional career ahead of him. I would not argue if the article was deleted, however. Ndenison talk 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But Gore potentially having a professional career in front of him is irrelevant per WP:CRYSTAL. Gore was cut on the first day of training camp for failing a conditioning test and, according to his teammate at the time Mike Byrne, he decided to call it quits after that. While Byrne's comment to me obviously cannot be a source for the encyclopedia, it seems to be true given that Gore has yet to sign with any professional league at any level since last August. Gore's "career" is likely done and as it stands he has no notability.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Chris said, even though Byrne's comment isn't encyclopedic, Gore has yet to sign with anyone else. And just based on the fact he was a member of team like Byrne was, he should have been able to catch on somewhere like Canada (like Byrne), AFL, or some other small league who wants NFL type talent. Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 T/C 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Although there are quite a few external links, they all have to do with college football, which is not enough for notability. 129.105.104.246 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should point out that three of these delete votes are based on a misinterpretation of, or at least very liberal extrapolation of, WP:ATH, which states that athletes at the highest amateur level are notable. This is NCAA Division I FBS for American football, which is more notable than most other nation's highest-level professional sports due to its popularity, common knowledge, economics, marketing, and media coverage. WP:ATH does not have any wording that indicates that highest-level amateur sports are only notable in the absence of a professional level. Additionally, WP:ATH does not trump WP:N, so the external links, whether referencing college football or not, are enough to indicate notability. Strikehold (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Although if you interpret WP:ATH like that, considering how many teams there are, and how many players there are on each of those teams, that's a lot of "notable" people. However, if you pick a random person on a NCAA Division I FBS team, chances are the only sources you'll find are websites simply listing that they're on the team.
Look at the sources. 1- He was part of a diving competition between teammates. 2- He's on Special Teams. 3- He blocked an extra point. 4- He's on the team. 5- He's starting on the team. 6- He's on the team. 7- He's no longer on the team.
I'd summarize that as not notable. 75.31.250.206 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what if it's a lot of people? It's not a paper encyclopedia. It's one thing to say that he isn't notable from those sources under WP:N. But you cited WP:ATH as the reason why it should be deleted. That is not possible, as WP:ATH is an additional criterion. That is, you can become notable under WP:ATH, but you cannot be non-notable because of it. Strikehold (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm not sure stating that other people's opinions are based on 'misinterpretations' is very helpful. Also, you seem to be suggesting that an American sport is inherently more notable than sports in other countries? Is that something we really want to get into? Going down that road, then globally football's (soccer's) popularity is such that American football is of very little significance!! In this recent discussion on a footballer (soccer player) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Coleman in deleting the article, the closing admin stated 'WP:ATHLETE does clearly state that a subject must play at the highest professional level of a sport to be considered notable'. This for a sportsman with a professional contract at one of the world's larger football clubs (Everton) who had previously played at the highest level of football in Ireland AND had international caps at under 21 level. Still not enough to pass WP:Athlete. Dan Gore doesn't even come close! which is why this article was deleted originally. Parslad (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is one individual's interpretation, which, as I said, in my opinion, is a very liberal one. Just because it was the opinion of an administrator does not lend it any more value than anyone else's. Without knowing the subject you speak of firsthand, it sounds as though it was deleted wrongly. As for comparing the notability of one of the most popular and lucrative sports in the third largest country in the world with those of others, I would be glad to address dissenting opinions. Please note though that I did not say all sports, and I certainly didn't say it made it any better. Strikehold (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know you didn't say all sports, or better, which is why I said 'an American sport' and 'inherently more notable'. The deletion debate on Seamus Coleman which I quoted from above seems to be typical of the debates on sportspeople which I have been following recently. I agree with you that the closing admin's interpretation on that debate is just one opinion, but perhaps you can agree with me that calling my (and many others') reading of WP:ATH a 'misinterpretation' is unhelpful and a little insulting? Parslad (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I apologize if it came across as condescending. I should have explicitly said that it is my own opinion that that view is a misinterpretation of the guideline. But I would disagree that to say as much is unhelpful, because doing so demonstrates that it is not an uncontested or factual view as to letter or meaning of WP:ATH. Strikehold (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Those of you saying keep, ask yourself this. In 10, 20, 50 years, when this article is identical to how it is now, will it be worth being here? Will Gore truly ever be notable? What has he does to gain such long-lasting notability? Playing college football, even DI-FBS ball, isn't notable because not all the players do anything while playing and more never make it to the pros.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's irrelevant now.►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This guy showed up for camp so out of shape they cut him immediately, flushing a multimillion dollar career down the toilet for sheer stupidity. This article should be deleted for sure, but an article should be written discussing all the people like Dan Gore who blew incredible carers in this bizarre way. 69.39.49.27 (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I don't think Gore has much of a shot at the pro level to begin with. Most undrafted rookies are just camp bodies who will never have an NFL career.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:46, 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 keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirwaiz Muhammad Umar Farooq[edit]

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

blp unreferenced, notabiliyt not established  Chzz  ►  14:05, 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 Already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah variko[edit]

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

Narrative piece. Nathanhillinbl (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good story, but wrong place for it. Nathanhillinbl (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It might even have been copied straight away from some work. I smell a copyvio. De728631 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Marvin Schur. MBisanz talk 10:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Marvin Schur[edit]

Death of Marvin Schur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Comment I notice that someone has already edited out mention of the incident in the article about Bay City, Michigan, noting that it's "not a notable event in the overall history of the city" [24], or at least not one of the prouder moments for a crappy little burg. However, I can't say keep because I don't think his death would have made national news if he hadn't had a large amount of cash. Interestingly enough, we have an entire category for Category:Deaths from hypothermia but no corresponding article. If the Michigan legislature later enacts a "Marvin's Law" from this, there's the potential for an article down the road. For now, however, it's sad news. Mandsford (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikinews if it isn't there already, and delete. An otherwise unremarkable fellow famous only for his manner of death, receiving some minor human-interest story coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the local news. Subject not notable for anything else. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—StaticVision (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - this does not have "historical notability." JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above concerns with WP:NOT#NEWS. ThemFromSpace 18:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - true, sad, verifiable, with good cites, but not notable, at least yet. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and REDIRECT (originally delete, please see new entry below) article "Death of Marvin Schur." Body of article was taken from article on Marvin Schur then redirected to this page. This article presents itself as a summary of a single news event. Marvin Schur's life, death and legacy gained enough global media attention and public outcry to warrant entry into Wikipedia. However, I agree that the way the information is presented here in the article, "Death of Marvin Schur" is inappropriate for Wikipedia.
WWGB, Your summary misrepresents the circumstances surrounding Marvin Schur's demise and subsequent series of events.
Mr. Mandsford, "I can't say keep because I don't think his death would have made national news if he hadn't had a large amount of cash..." It was not revealed to the public and after the creation of a Wikipedia entry that Marvin Schur had a sizeable estate and only after his death had already gained global media attention. The story broke after a city government and wholly-owned municipal power company acted with such neglect and disregard for one of its residents that it resulted in their death. It was that story that brought to light Marvin Schur's life of service and further solidified his character has being noteworthy with the bequest of his estate to the regional medical center. Further, the state government and legislature are undertaking action with respect to this event.
Smerdis of Tlön, "An otherwise unremarkable fellow famous only for his manner of death, receiving some minor human-interest story coverage." Marvin Schur did not receive minor human-interest story coverage. He received global media coverage due to the involvement of his local government's culpability in his death. And to characterise Marvin Schur as an unremarkable individual is disrespectful and ignores his life of service in both to his country and his community.
ThemFromSpace, I believe that your application of Wikipedia's WP:NOT#NEWS policy is not appropriate for this argument. I quote, "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event..." Marvin Schur's death and the events surround it were hardly routine news nor was it tabloid journalism. And yes, the event was notable and Marvin Schur was the central figure of the story. Articles have not been created about other individuals central to the story such as the mayor, city manager or power employees involved because their notoriety are all incidental to that of Marvin Schur. Additionally, the story of Marvin Schur's death extended past his demise from hypothermia and into stories of criminal investigation, political action, public discourse and acts of charity just to name a few.
Precedent does exist on Wikipedia for individuals either solely or partially notable for their method of death; such as, convicted murderer John Albert Taylor who was executed by the state of Utah by firing squad (yes, and I know that there is a Wikipedia policy that provides guidance for criminals).
Precedent does exist for an individual solely famous for one even such as Jessica McClure who as an 18 month old child fell into a Texas well and was rescued after much media attention.
I could go on. But Wikipedia's policy on deletion, of articles about "People notable only for one event", Wikipedia:Notability (people), as cited in other user's arguments is clear and goes further as to illustrate the circumstances surrounding the appropriate deletion of a biography of a person of only minor notoriety such as the camera operator of the Rodney King beating, George Holliday. Marvin Schur's death and the obvious role he played in the story, is hardly minor or insignificant to the story and the fact that the events surrounding his death led to multiple, multiple news accounts cannot be ignored. Also, the fact that the article on Marvin Schur has received so much attention and debate within the Wikipedia community and among users on its relevance within the Wikipedia project because of the very nature of the media attention and notoriety only further supports its continued existence; not to mention that Marvin Schur's Wikipedia entry received mention in national media coverage itself.
Finally, though I do agree that the article, "Death of Marvin Schur" may be deleted, there is significant enough information to support an entry on Marvin Schur within the Wikipedia project. And though there may be a general consensus built that the "Death of Marvin Schur" may be deleted I direct your attention to the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators policy under Deciding whether to delete, number 3: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it" and number 4: "When in doubt, don't delete." I will allow someone else to raise doubt as to whether or not the article "Death of Marvin Schur" should be saved.
The alternative I recommend is a single Wikipedia entry on Marvin Schur. If the article itself somehow displeases you, help edit and clean it up. Do some independent research and contribute constructively to it to make it better. Don't just snipe and try to tear down the work of others solely because it displeases you.
I've enjoyed our debate. Best wishes, --A. Poinçot (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate your frustration. Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay on Wikipedia. Nobody has anything against Mr. Schur, who was a medic in World War II. People simply disagree as to whether this tragic incident merits its own article. Mandsford (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep If I recall this was reported by Netscape, CNN, and was featured on the news ticker for yahoo messanger news tracker and MSN news tracker... that implies potential notability to me if numerous news aggrigators are pinging it. 69.210.42.241 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also delete Marvin Schur, subject of both article is non-notable as discussed here and per WP:ONEEVENT. Person was non-notable, and the article was redirected to cover the event of his death which is what received news coverage. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I disagree with even the "author" on this one. This story received media attention all over the place. The Marvin Schur story keeps popping up over and over again. This gentlemen's life was more significant than a murderer, executed by firing squad, in what amounted to an extra-judicial killing over an unpaid electric bill.--Simpotico (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have changed my above recommendation from "delete" to "keep and redirect" back to the original Marvin Schur article. --A. Poinçot (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: APoincot (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. 220.253.70.221 (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You're right, that second "keep" could have caused some confusion. I have retitled it as a "note" to help clarify my position. Thanks. --A. Poinçot (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: I have moved this section from the top of the page and reformatted the title as it was fouling up the day's listing. Please follow convention and place your comment at the foot of the page - they will be read. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Record[edit]

On 15 February 2009, WWGB create the article entitled, "Death of Marvin Schur" and then copied and pasted the work produced by me from the original Marvin Schur page into their article and redirected the Marvin Schur page to their article citing, "moved Marvin Schur to Death of Marvin Schur: Article about circumstances of his death, not the individual, who does not meet notability guidelines." On 16 March 2009 WWGB started a deletion discussion regarding the very article they were responsible for creating via the taking of another's work, retitling it as a news story then trying to justify deleting it because it was being presented as a news story.

WWGB's remarks follow in the deletion discussion.

The generation log for the Death of Marvin Schur article may be found here: Death of Marvin Schur Article Creation

In my opinion, this appears to me to be a concerted effort by WWGB to redirect then misinform the Wikipedia community regarding the rational and justification for the deletion the Marvin Schur content from Wikipedia.

Of course, I could be wrong, assuming WWGB acted in good faith in redirecting the Marvin Schur page for one reason then in good faith forgot why they did it and is now trying to justify deleting it for another reason all together. Of course, that's assuming a measure of good faith, which I do. People make mistakes.

--A. Poinçot (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB wrote in the history remarks, "I am removing your slanderous inappropriate comments from this page. Report me if you wish, but I will not tolerate this."

WWGB wrote in the history remarks, "Keep going and we will both be suspended, but I will not tolerate your inappropriate allegations."

Repeatedly deleting this won't make it go away, pesky undo button. Respond to the allegations. Don't sweat it. We're all assuming good faith here; even me. --A. Poinçot (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to tolerate my statements, I'm asking you to respond to them for the benefit of this debate and the Wikipedia community. Deleting this has no benefit. --A. Poinçot (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Moved article to more appropriate title using WP:REDIRECT.
  2. Did not "cut and paste" or "hijack" anything or "misinform" anyone and resent insinuations.
  3. Waited one month for article to improve. It didn't.
  4. Nominated article for deletion in accordance with established practice.
  5. Having this debate on this page is inappopriate, but your accusations leave me no choice. WWGB (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting a month for an article to clean itself up isn't doing anybody no good. Why don't you help by making it better instead of trying to delete another person's work. I say keep it. I don't know, this all seems kind of slim shady to me. --Simpotico (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now WWGB, lets be honest about this, "Waited one month for article to improve. It didn't." The article history log speaks for itself. I was in the process of editing the article at the very moments that you decided to start a debate on deletion. I have no doubt that you saw, via your watch list, that someone was attempting to edit and clean up this article. So, assuming good faith, you decided to undo some of the edits and recommend the article for deletion because in your words you, "Waited one month for article to improve. It didn't" even though it was.

The established practice for deletion is spelled out in the applicable Wikipedia policies, each of which are referred to and citied in my argument. Just saying that there is a policy that may justify deletion because in your opinion it does not raise to the level of worthiness to be included in the Wikipedia project does not speak to the intent or content of said policy.

And again, assuming good faith, if your argument for deletion was not an attempt to misinform; then it was and is at best, inconsistent and that, my friend, raises doubt about motive. V/R --A. Poinçot (talk) 20:54, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degree programs at Duke University[edit]

Degree programs at Duke University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

With the exception of a wee bit of WP:SYN, no secondary references for what is essentially part of an advertising brochure. Anything encyclopedic here can costlessly be in the Duke University article. THF (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete directory, thoroughly unencyclopedic. JJL (talk) 03:21, 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]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first AFD was closed as a merge but I think that closure was wrong. The second was not closed as merge but redirect. With that said, I agree that we should try a consistent approach to these types of articles and it seems that WP:UNI would be a good place to begin such a discussion. There must be flexibility in how we approach these articles but some more intentional consistency is also needed. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree discussion at WP:UNI could be useful, so I've started a new section at their talk page here. However, I'm not convinced that a uniform response is necessary; the decision on whether or not to merge will depend on the quality of both the main article and the sub-article proposed for deletion. Sometimes the material under consideration will fit quite nicely into the parent article, sometimes it will disrupt or overbalance it. This is an editorial decision usually best dealt with at the talk page of the parent article rather than at AfD. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bluedog423's rationale. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not a catalog. KnightLago (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like an airtight case of WP:NOT. Per Bluedog423's concern, I agree that all such articles should be dealt with in exactly the same fashion: deleted. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just a indiscriminate list of programs. Nothing notable about "Duke degree programs" as a topic. The individual schools, yes. This list, no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilkinsen (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and set strong precedent for similar articles. Indiscriminate list. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Ruf (soldier)[edit]

Hugo Ruf (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No apparent notability.Galassi (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong keep Notability of Knight's Cross recipients has been established before. An example would be Karl Brommann see discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Brommann. Hugo Ruf is formally listed in Fellgiebel and Scherzer and their is no doubt about him having received the highest military award of the Third Reich. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fellgiebel, Walther-Peer (2000). Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939-1945. Wölfersheim-Berstadt, Germany: Podzun-Pallas. ISBN 3-7909-0284-5.
  2. Scherzer, Veit (2007). Ritterkreuzträger 1939 - 1945 Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchives. Jena, Germany: Scherzers Miltaer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2.
  • KEEP As above he was awarded the Highest Military Award of Nazi Germany. Notability established in the Karl Brommann AFD --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 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 09:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis[edit]

Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Firstly the article seems to be of original research. Seven of the sources are used to list known terrorists but none of the sources point that this is a trend to a rise in extremism. It also seems like the user is trying to make the article look credible by listing these known terrorists. The user that wrote this article seems be trying to link this by pointing out it points to a rise in extremism, thus using original research. The user that created this article admits he has "specific interest and expertise" in this article. Article is entirely POV, WP:TERRORIST , synthesis and WP:COATRACK.

Several of the sources cited are either blogs or extremely radical and questionable. The author also refuses to explain why he using only Pakistanis as the subject of this article even though several of his sources also point to other Muslim groups of different nations. Also see the debate on the talk page here → Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


ths article is NOT original research. it is an encylopedic article on a critical issue which is a clear and present danger to the world community and USA in particular. it is an established fact CIA and MI5 are putting substantial resources into monitoring British Pakistanis in particular. specifically this article is about people who can fly to USA without a visa. This is referenced from credible sources. Yes I have specific interest and expertise in that area and I believe most if not all wiki editors contribute articles in their area of interest. please point me to a policy which states that you cannot contribute in the areas of interest and expertise. the above user has been very incivil and repeatedly violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks. like all articles this article is open to constructive edits from wikipedia community is not perfect and if any contents need to be modified anybody can do so to improve the article. i will also contribute more articles on islamic terrorism in britain and elsewhere as time permits--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you repeatedly accuse me of using personal attacks even though I have done nothing and an admin has cleared me of it. And for the last time, stop trying to change the subject. "which is a clear and present danger to the world community and USA in particular", isn't this orginal research? Your letting your bias get influence you into writing this article.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - The question to ask is NOT "Is there a high level of Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis"? The question to ask is "Is Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis" a verifiably notable topic under discussion. Merger is an okay alternative, but only if it is the correct merger. The article hinges on two basic and closely-related points which are notable, verifiable, non-POV. Firstly, enough British Pakistanis have been convicted of terrorist activity that the intelligence community views British Pakistanis with intense concern. Secondly, this concern has gotten so much media attention that it has a negative impact of the quality of life of decent, law-abiding Pakistani Britons. Merging to British Pakistani is a bad option as these subjects would dominate that article if merged. That article should not be mostly about the extremism issue and to make it so would be really bad. On the other hand, to create an article called "Islamic extremism in the United Kingdom" (or "Islamic radicalism in the United Kingdom" or whatever) and to let this material form the bulk of it is decent alternative. But don't be fooled; such a merger won't change the fact that among British Muslims, it is Pakistani Britons that are the primary focus of concern in the UK. -Boston (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how it defines both sides of the argument? I only see once source citing the cause of "an increase in extremism". Yes, it is notable, but why not allow it to be merged with other specific topics as in with other notable Muslim committees? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the notability of the topic is indicated, we wouldn't delete the article for advancing one WP:POV moreso than another as that can be corrected. I considered merging but I do see evidence that British Pakistanis are under specific discussion in the manner indicated to an extent that would make merger impractical. The amount of text, and the amount of text there will be when the article is improved, seems to make merger with British Pakistanis problematic. --Boston (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting...first time I've seen a user whose being questioned tries to vote on his own article. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors don't own articles, so it's not his, mine or yours. This isn't a vote, it's an opinion poll, and I believe it is appropriate for a creating editor to opine in bold face as Wikireader41 has done. --Boston (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologizes on the owning issue. But yes I know there isn't a rule against allowing the creating editor vote on the article, just never seen it done before. Now if you don't mind, back to the topic please. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve because this doesn't seem to be a case of original research, as the British Pakistani community, rightly or wrongly, is often identified in media and government sources as having more extremists, relative to other British Muslim communities, so it does seem to be a legitimate topic to cover, independent of whether the perception is actually a false one or not. It's notable. Rather than being deleted, the article should ideally feature any opposing viewpoints on the matter, where these can be reliably sourced. That would seem to be a more constructive approach, in the true spirit of the encyclopaedia. Lachrie (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is composed of a synthesis of sources to advance the view that British Pakistanis are increasingly extremist. Additionally, the article has a fundamental problem in that it uses the word "extremist"; it inherently takes an anti-Pakistani slant by calling them extremist. These points considered, I don't think the article can ever be fixed to be compliant with our policies, and thusly should be deleted. Sceptre (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radicalism might be a more neutral term, but there's already an article on extremism as a political term, and I'm afraid the reasoning that because the article is discussing extremism among British Pakistanis, it must be inherently anti-Pakistani, just seems fallacious. Lachrie (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards". Doesn't look neutral to me... Sceptre (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some individuals and groups do adhere to non-normative values, so the phenomenon is real, and being real, probably ought to receive coverage. As I say, the term 'radicalism' has less of a pejorative sense than 'extremism', and might be preferred, however. The radicalisation of British Pakistanis in particular has been the subject of media discussion, and an opposing view is presented in the article, so it looks salvageable. The focus certainly isn't the invention of the article's creator. Lachrie (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but under whose standards are they extremist, or radical? It's too murky to use it as an unidentified qualifier. Sceptre (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic radicals would be radical by the standards of the great majority of Muslims, and the wider British community. To say that such a term is relative is not to say that it's arbitrary. It isn't. One of the purposes of the article would obviously be to move towards such a relative definition. The objection to such a relative definition is merely philosophical, and doesn't remotely seem to justify deletion of the article. Lachrie (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
pardon my ignorance but what exactly is the correct term for people who carry bombs into trains and kill innocent men women and children or who fly planes into prominent office buildings ??? I had already avoided the term 'Terrorism'. looks like some people have issues with 'Extremism' also. what term do people suggest we use ?? I hope it is not 'Martyrs' to describe these people.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Idiots. Think about it: what would we call Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness? Sceptre (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Labelling such people 'militants' or 'radicals' may be euphemistic but it cuts down on sterile POV arguments. If the nature of any associated violence is fully explained the meaning is still clear enough. I'd support moving the article to 'Islamic radicalism among Pakistani Britons/British Pakistanis', or suchlike. Lachrie (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment:The term "extremism" carries an implicit viewpoint, WP:EXTREMIST. I think this is a sign this article has a hidden bias. --J.Mundo (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article's bias is not-so-hidden, and that's why it needs improvement. "Extremism" doesn't necessarily seem like a more severe term than "radicalism", but if that is people's sense then certain we should Move it to "Islamic Radicalism among British Pakistanis". --Boston (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the community thinks that 'Radicalism' is more acceptable dont see a problem with the move. however plenty of precedent on wikipedia of articles using the taboo word 'Terrorism'. Islamic terrorism, State terrorism, United States and state terrorism, Pakistan and state terrorism, Iran and state terrorism, Religious terrorism, Christian terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism, War on Terrorism are just a few examples. dont think all those names violate wikipedia policy of NPOV.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Alleged Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis" might be better. I wouldn't argue against a NPOV article (i.e., not this article, but a more balanced one) with that title.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and what info do you think we include to make it more balanced. I have been unable to find any sources that say that their is no problem with extremism among British Pakistanis and this is all somebodies imagination. Also would like to remind everyone of WP:DUE that requires we give 'Proportional weight' to all viewpoints and not 'Equal' weight. If ten sources feel this is a problem and two feel it is not then they certainly dont deserve equal coverage in the article. Any specific suggestions regarding making this 'neutral' would be sincerely appreciated.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I have had to remove personal attack filled votes from a sock of a blocked IP and the user has already used 5 IPs in the last 24 hours. Please wait the duration of your original 48 hour block before attempting to vote again here. When you do make sure that you stick to the facts and leave the personal attacks and soapboxing out of it. This AfD is about this article only and whether the topic merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is not a forum for accusations and attacks. Mfield (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Right Wing Concerns about Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis, because the title of the article should reflect the content. Then transwiki to Conservapedia where it belongs, delete it, and salt.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COATRACK, WP:WTA, WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST. This pure fear mongering and original research. Beware: In the opinion of so called "experts" a significant number radicalized British Pakistanis will come to U.S to bomb the crap out of us, because they have ancestral ties to Kashmir and resentment, did we mention they are Islamic? Common, the CIA also believed that Saddam had weapon of mass destruction. The fact is that the majority of British Pakistanis are law abiding citizens that rejects terrorism. If the government and other interest groups wants to use racial profiling, fine. But Wikipedia should be a neutral place free of bias. Yes, there is a problem of terrorism and extremism between us (the world) not only the British Pakistanis and the topic of terrorism is already covered on Wikipedia. --J.Mundo (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think opposing rhetoric amounts to an argument for deletion. Nor does the article qualify as synthesis. A quick Factiva search brings up 58 newspaper articles on the British Pakistani community and terrorism/extremism. It may be a coatrack, but the proper way to deal with that isn't to delete it but to trim excessive bias and add more content to balance it. Lachrie (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again please if you can make 'specific' suggestions about 'balancing' please do not hesitate to do so. The article does NOT imply ALL British pakistanis have extreme views. according to the info the estimates are about 4000 people ( some of them probably of non pakistani descent) are roaming around Britain with training in AFPAK. total community of british pakistanis is a million strong. CIA is answerable to Barack Obama who not too long ago won a landslide victory in USA and if he did not shut down CIA after hearing this we have to keep that in mind. and BTW he had well defined views about whom to Bomb before he got elected and convinced people that fighting in Iraq was a mistake because the central front in terror war is in Pakistan/Afghanistan. using past errors of judgement of CIA to negate their current concerns doesnt sound fair and balanced and NPOV. again what exactly would be the proverbial 'opposite side of the coin' here. should we include info about British pakistani philanthropists in here ?? somehow I dont think it belongs.--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me get this straight according to your "info' there are 4,000 people training but "some of them probably of non pakistani descent." But the article says that "there is a significant number who are radicalized" out of a million. It seems that this article only carries the point of view of some called experts like Factiva that don't even have a straight answer. This article is synthesis. For example, there is a problem of gangs and crime in the US (more than 4,000 individuals). I'm sure we can get sources that says that the majority are Latino and have a Christian background, yet we don't have an article about Christian extremist among Latinos. Why? Because is POV pushing, because Christianity is not a cause of gang crime and the majority of people of Islamic faith doesn't have to do anything with terrorism. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
majority of No major religion are terrorists or extremists. The fact is CIA an MI5 are focusing on British Pakistanis in specific and consider them likely source of next major attack on USA. This is an undisputed fact from multiple credible sources. are you telling me CIA and MI5 dont know what they are doing or what they are doing is wrong ??? I see boatload of POV issues right there. Why are they not focusing on French Muslims or Christian extremists among Latinos ?? I dont think we should let our personal bias come into this event which is otherwise notable and verifiable. I am sure as the article 'matures' on wikipedia different editors from different backgrounds will contribute to it and make it more 'Neutral'. see WP:DEMOLISH and WP:ATD. the article not being NPOV in its present state is NOT a reason to delete per wikipedia policies--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actually it does not say that the islamic extremism is rising. just that it is getting more attention in recent years. For the longest time the focus of US policy was wrongly on Iraq but now is rightly shifting to Afghanistan-Pakistan (IMHO). this article appears to be bigger than the article that you are proposing to merge it into and deals with a much more specific issue. most people will instantly know what 'Islamic Extremism' refers to though their responses to the word may be different. could you point me to a wikipedia policy saying that the topics need to only cover 'Inherent Quality' and everything else needs to be deleted. please see WP:IDL the question here is not whether anybody likes this article or not. the question really is whether this article meets the wikipedia policies . like i said not being NPOV (yet) is not a reason to delete an article--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I cant point you to a policy, but the title of the article suggests that 'Islamic extremism' is a quality of British Pakistanis. Yes this article is bigger, mostly because it is filled with a lot of nonsense. My point on 'extreme Islam' is that the word used to describe this supposed extremist political Islam is Islamism, whereas fundamentalism would aptly describe Wahhabis and some other groups and extremism doesnt really mean anything. And if this about the increasing 'attention' these British Pakistanis are receiving than it should cover that and the title reflect that. And I dont think I said anything that could be taken as WP:IDL, though maybe you should look at WP:LIKE Nableezy (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the title implies whatsoever that all British Pakistanis are extremist but agree if we could find some other language ("Allegations of extremism...?" "...Concerns about extremism...?" "...Investigations of extremism...?") that makes that even more clear without being an awkward title that might be a good thing. But let's do this if it's genuinely an improvement; let's not do it to placate the extremists in our own ranks here on Wikipedia.--Boston (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as it was a response to my comment, I hope you dont include me as an extremist in the ranks of Wikipedia, but as I have been called worse I can let that slide. But to the substance of your comment, based on how it is being described in the AfD then Investigations of extremism would be fitting, but the article does not reflect that either. Nableezy (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your instinct is correct, I absolutely wasn't referring to you. What this debate needs is people like you who can disagree without being disagreeable. --Boston (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
collapsing up section with accusations of canvassing containing no votes or discussion of the article itself
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Vote stacking? Unlike the collection of sockpuppets trying to get this article deleted, I have not mentioned this debate anywhere. These edits ([29],[30], [31]) are all by an obvious, disruptive sockpuppet. If there is one thing that many detractors of this article display with great ability it is the tendency to discredit themselves by angry and blatantly disruptive actions. As stated, I believe the article is currently somewhat WP:POV and therefore needs to be corrected, not deleted. I have no anti-Pakistani feelings despite the efforts of a few Pakistani editors to engender them in me. --Boston (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes vote stacking. You clearly (here) told Wikireader41 to vote in favor of the article. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me telling that editor to how to format his comment defending the article he made is vote stacking? And the outrageous behavior of you and your sockpuppet allies is above the board? Unbelievable. --Boston (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm not even going to respond to that but warn you for accusing me of having "sockpuppet allies" --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is the second time this editor is making false accusations. Fist he said that 'I had agreed that this is original Research' when I had said no such thing. Initially he tried to get this article speedily deleted clearly violating wikipedia policies and was admonished by an administrator for that. now he is making wild accusations again . I agree with above Boston that this article needs to be tagged for POV issues and neutrality and I am also openly asking the wikicommunity to help improve this article .--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • that list by the way is of all sockpuppets of banned user nangparbat and there is no rule against monitoring vandals and rude editors.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain to me why you were clearly told to remove your hitlist? [32] --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
also this user Always ahead at the top of this article is same as UnknownForEver. let their be no confusion as i think he is trying to create some--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see how there is any confusion, did he !vote with each name? But can we all not get into a pissing match here, you dont have to argue with every single delete, and you dont have to argue with every keep. Make your points and move on, please. Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
he did tag this article for speedy deletion in clear violation of wikipedia policies and wwas admonished by an adminitrator. He has been showing bad faith about this article --Wikireader41 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTICE: We are currently arguing about editors not about edits. Let's ALL take at least a 60 minute break! --Boston (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pov and synth. Eusebeus (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve - There is merit to this article. However I wont mind changing the tile to Islamic Extremism in Britain. Scope of the current article is very narrow and may appear condosending towards a particular diaspora of Britain. Sumanch (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources specifically state that the concern is with British Pakistanis not with all the Muslims in Britain. I feel it would be unfair to lump all muslims in Britain together. other muslims in UK are from Bangladesh, India and the Arab countries etc and looks like there is no concern about them. I was blown away when I started reading up about this subject . Intuitively you would think Iranian or Iraqis would be considered the big threat to the USA by CIA.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- After reading the article it appears that it in violation nPOV. Most of the references are on British Islamic extremists. Being overwhelmingly Muslims, some of Pakistanis are ‘’Islamic extremists’’. It applies to any other community. Pak-Afghan border being center of this ideology, Pakistan is easiest and natural access point. However, this does not mean extremism is endemic among British Pakistanis or there are no other groups who foment similar ideas. So this can be part of Islamic Extremism in Britain but does not have the merit to be an article on its own.Sumanch (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per Sumanch, too much emphasis on ethnicity at WP so a more general article topic. It's clearly notable and has more sourcing than nearly any other article at Afd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this version without prejudice to somebody writing a neutral, encyclopedic article on the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Material added - In an attempt to change the POVish tone of the article, I have expanded the introduction and have added New York Times criticism of the British Media. To me, the article looks about 50-50 now. BTW, the New York Times and other sources seem to indicate that it is British Pakistanis in particular rather than British Muslims in general that are under harsh scrutiny. --Boston (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong and much needed article.--mbz1 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Boston has added several quotes in an attempt to legitimize the notability and lengthen the article but he fails to realize it is against policy. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to stop; in the kindest way possible I suggest you disengage from this, everything that you want to say has already been said and this is turning into WP:BATTLE for no reason. Nableezy (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is a matter of statistics: most British Muslims are of Pakistani descent, therefore one would expect extremist Muslims in Britain to be mostly of Pakistani descent. If this article stays, the title and lead paragraph should change - perhaps Muslim Extremism in Britain, could then include some non-British loonies such as Abu Hamza al-Masri, Omar Bakri Muhammad etc who were operational here. The title as it is is an unlikely search term. pablohablo. 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that is what it would seem however some of the experts quoted in the sources think that the extremism is more prevalent among Pakistanis as compared to other muslims because of their ties to Pakistan and the frequency they travel back and forth. Not as many terrorist training camps in Saudi Arabia, India or Bangladesh as in Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Afghanistan where the extremists go to school. Could not find hard statistics though. Anyway these would be tough if not impossible to generate in a scientific fashion. I agree that the title needs to be close to a search term which people are likely to use. That is the only reason that I think 'terrorism' is a better word in the title as it is rightly or wrongly the most common word used to describe such behaviour and most likely search term a person would use if he needed info on this subject--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I suggested but the original editor of the article has an anti-Pakistan view and is specifically targeting Pakistan. There are British Arabs, Indian etc terrorists who could qualify but the editor refuses to admit this fact. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That means nothing. Reference several more articles that state this. The one you've cited is a "Guest Analysts" (aka blog).--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes it does because Washington Post is a reputable and trusted news source and would not just publish anything on its site without editorial scrutiny. I suggest you listen to Nableezy and stay out of this.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woah woah. Ever heard of being civil? I am questioning the source you've cited (see here). I know SOME blogs can be accepted, they must be confirmed in other sources and that is why I asked you to list other sources that claim this. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not sure how 'trusted' or 'reputable' it is, better off just saying reliable Nableezy (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it is in US and most of rest of the world--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colonel Warden. Might be better at Muslim Radicalization of British Pakistanis. Not using Muslim loses the factor of in what way radicalized; radicalized avoids the 'extremism is bad' current vogue on Wiki, until we all go to radicalization, when 'radical is bad' will grow; Article clearly focuses, and so do its' sources, on the British Pakistanis. ThuranX (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is a radical Muslim? If a title change is up for debate I think it should be 'Islamism in Britain (or UK if you want)' Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said before, all over Wikipedia, when semantic nonsense like this is raised, Radicalization has a specific definition, used by the Reliable Sources, which we, in turn, work from. If a RS discusses radicalization and the extremists which it produces, then we can too. ThuranX (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And academic sources call this 'radical' Islam something. That something is Islamism. It isnt semantic nonsense, it is having precision in the use of language, in of all things an encyclopedia. I dont really care about that point though. Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article breaches basic policy. It is an original research synthesis, essay. What's extreme? That's not a neutral description of anything. There is no way we can write or maintain an encyclopedia article under this topic. Move anything useful to "Islam in Britain".--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis = 'Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources' I believe multiple credible sources consider Islamic extremism/terrorism/radicalism/whateveryouwishtocallitism a very real issue among British Pakistanis. I dont think I discovered or created or would solve this problem. Infact Bruce Riedel seems to be the strongest proponent of trying to bring this issue to mainstream awareness.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because "multiple credible sources" say something does not mean it is not POV. Of course, we can record what they say, and what they mean by it, but "extremism" is not a neutral term.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about Synthesis. POV is not an issue that merits deletion. sameway if 'Extremism' is not a term acceptable to wikipedia community it can be easily fixed by changing the articles title.--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanx for your comments. however the central issue is that CIA and MI5 are focusing on British Pakistanis and that is what this article is about. the issue of requiring visas was specifically directed at British Pakistanis and I am not aware of any thought about requiring all Britons to get a Visa or Even all British Muslims to get visas. the sources are very clear on who CIA and MI5 were targeting. We may find this quasi racial profiling abhorrent but it is an undisputed notable and verifiable fact. I am sure people who wanted to have issues would have issues with an article titled 'Islamic Extremism in Britain' wanting it to be retitled 'Extremism in Britain" which would then need to be retitled "Extremism in Europe" which would then become 'Extremism on Planet Earth" and so on.WP:COATRACK issue even if it is real ( and I dont believe it is ) is not a reason to delete an article which is otherwise notable. see Wikipedia:COATRACK#What to do about coatracks
This is the other problem with the article. What you are describing is not adequately summarised in the title. What the CIA and MI5 are doing is merely a response to a phenomenon, namely Islamic Extremism in the UK. The CIA response and US visa profiling is only what is relevant to you. It is ludicrous to suggest that the importance of a whole cutural phenomenon only lies in the fears of the US. You are pushing a US-centric view of the situation. The topic of Islamic extremism in the UK has been the subject of a number of academic studies. The US reaction is only a piece of minor news regarding the whole and is not the central issue at hand, albeit that this is probably the only way you have come across the issue — through US news outlets. It is a much discussed and analysed topic here in Britain. Stop presenting the view that the US is at the centre of the issue. It is not. I'm rewriting the lead to reflect the real issue at hand.[33] Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
excellent. the more the number of editors we have the more balanced the article will be. I am sorry If I conveyed that the US response is central to this. I do live in US and get to hear what US media has to say and might be subconsciously biased by that. I would wholeheartedly agree that this has bigger implications for Britons. It takes 8 hours to fly across the pond and US security I believe knows before the flight takes off who is on it. You guys have to live there and travel in the tube with some of these 4000 trained whateveryouwishtocallthem-ists--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
also thanx for bringing up that it is a much discussed and analysed topic here in Britain. that pretty much settles the issue of this article being OR or SYNTH especially since it looks like this topic has been subject of academic studies--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He actually said that 'Islamic Extermism in Britiian' is much discussed and a subject of academic studies, that 'Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis' is a minor part of that. Nableezy (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so you are implying that Islamic extremism in Britain has a non British Pakistani character. The sources seem to say otherwise. Also bulk of Muslim population in Britain is British Pakistani. How do you reconcile these facts ? I personally would not have a Major problem with renaming the article islamic extremism in britain though I feel it would unfairly include Muslims who are not radicalised something I would wish to avoid.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would suggest you not extrapolate hidden meanings from my words, if you think what I wrote was not clear ask for a clarification, but I did not imply anything. You said that Sillyfolkboy had said extermism among British Pakistanis "has been subject of academic studies" when he said no such thing. That is what I implied, actually that is what I plainly and clearly wrote. Nableezy (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Renaming the article islamic extremism in britain...would unfairly include Muslims who are not radicalised". Huh?? I think this comment speaks for itself and the editor. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It would unfairly include Muslims who are not radicalised something I would wish to avoid.", using your same logic the current tittle is describing all Bristish Pakistanis as "radicalised." --J.Mundo (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly, I had to revert Sillyfolkboy's new introduction not because I disagreed but because it didn't rely upon strong inline citations. I did make the intro less America-centric, but if I had left Sillyfolkboy's introduction in place it would attract "Delete" votes. Let's explore what Sillyfolkboy was saying and, as much as we can, introduce that content into the intro with better citations. One definite improvement is the appearance of the unambiguous statement "most British Pakistanis are law-abiding citizens and only a minority have extreme political views" in the intro. --Boston (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citation to the study was a start and it fully backed up the info preceding it (I assume Unknown just didn't bother to read the report; it was a summary of p.58). However, the the study related to British Muslims rather than British Pakistanis specifically. Do you see how the title is denying the use of perfectly applicable sourcing? Also, I think mentioning the War on Terror is an absolute must for the lead, citations can be found later. British Pakistani radicalism is obviously somewhat related to the British military presence in the middle-east and I don't think we need any academic sources to prove that. It's verging on common knowledge. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
collapsing up section with accusations of canvassing containing no votes or discussion of the article itself
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Don't you DARE try to accuse me of doing that. That post was made BEFORE this debate. Go look at the times before you come back. I didn't realize that it was an admin and didn't check to see if the user was banned. Stop trying to make excuses to avoid getting this un-encyclopedic article deleted. I violated no rules. You, yourself, specificlly told Wikireader41 to vote, here, thus VOTESTACKED. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me telling that editor to how to format his comment defending the article he made is vote stacking? And the outrageous behavior of you and your sockpuppet allies is above the board? Unbelievable. --Boston (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned you to lay off the personal attacks, now I'm giving you a warning. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing is happening on the internet for this article. I found this on a forum. Sumanch (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that → Ãlways Ãhëad had in Bad Faith nominated this article for speedy deletion an act that was considered VANDALISM by an administrator who reverted it. See here[34] --Wikireader41 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

Before you blame anyone else look at your vile hate you have been warned off your racist slander before by nishkid 86.156.209.202 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of, stop trying to make this into a personal attack debate aganist me. This is about the article NOT me. Secondly, the admin DID NOT consider it as vandalism but instead suggested I do AfD because it was sourced. And again, Boston and Wikireader41 need to stop making this into an attack discussion aganist me. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read the edit summary when the administrator reverted you. he stated that you had committed VANDALISM. this is not an accusation. It is a fact. pay attention to the edit summary written by the editor when he reverted your tag for speedy deletion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination for this AfD gives no grounds for deletion, but instead just mentions that there are some editing disputes. AfDs are not the way to settle editing disputes. The subject is clearly notable, and the article should be kept and improved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've specifically stated that POV, WP:TERRORIST , synthesis and WP:COATRACK and the biased editor are the ground for deletion. There is no "editing disputes", where did you get that idea from? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problems you have mentioned are just editing problems, and they are not valid grounds for an AfD. This nomination for deletion is apparently just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The subject is WP:notable. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Title is non-NPOV to begin with (you might get away with "militant" -- though this more specific and precise term would of neccessity narrow the scope of this article, something i doubt the creators would like). "Exremism" is just far too subjective. (should we have a "moderation among British pakistani's article?" Of course not). There is currently a section in the British Pakistanis article with the title "Allegations of Extremism" which seems about right. In general, this is a content fork designed to disparage. There are of course articles about British Pakistani's of a nasty disposition like Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh about Islam in England and more relevantly, perhaps, Islam in Pakistan and this seems like a fork from those. In short, this article seems designed to identify and point to the "extremists" (says who, of course) among British Pakistanis in a disparaging fashion, and seems to serve no useful encyclopedic purpose (criminals like Mohammad Sidique Khan have their own articles).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are at least two citation that are headlined and substantially about this topic. A retitle discussion and a possible merge to a broader subject should be discussed on the article discussion page. Cleaning up any POV is an editing issue, but the notability of the subject is clear from the sources. That's the basis of our guidelines and while my initial instinct was to recommend deletion, we aren't supposed to be censoring based on subjective crtieria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
collapsing up section with accusations of sockpuppetry containing no votes or discussion of the article itself
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have suggested that the article be renamed to fit a more appropriate topic but the two primary editors are baised. Boston is just randomly trying to keep the article because he holds a personal grudge aganist me. Notice from his talk page, he removes everything that I state. Wikireader41 is a anti-Pakistani editor who has a history of POV and bias. Hes also been banned for doing that before. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to set the record straight. I have NEVER been BANNED. This is another violation of WP:NPA from this editor who has Vandaized this very article before. Use Nangparbat is the one who is BANNED for life and his sockpuppets have repeatedly Vandalized this article pushing a Virulent Pro Pakistani view. It would be prudent for any respectable editor not to associate with Banned users.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, go read the policies before trying to link me to random on you find. You've been blocked before clearly here. Don't turn this into a personal attack. Stick to the topic. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and you think the word BLOCKED means the same as BANNED on wikipedia. you clearly said BANNED which was a FALSE ALLEGATION. I will accept an unconditional apology though. Nangparbat is the one who is BANNED. You are the One who Has VANDALIZED this particular Article once.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and here is you arguing on nangparbats behalf so that he can vandalize this article again [43] remember you are known by the company you keep and people you advocate for--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and here is an administrator giving you a stern warning about your Vandalism of THIS article[44] and commenting on your past history --Wikireader41 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The primary editors have cited several sources that have exaggerated claims or are falsely stating from the source.

  • He further stated ‘The 800,000 or so British citizens of Pakistani origin are regarded by the American intelligence community as perhaps the single biggest threat environment that they have to worry about.’ This statement concludes that the ENTIRE Pakistani community in Britain is a threat.
  • Lashkar-e-Taiba which is a banned militant organization based in Muridke, Pakistan which is listed on U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations also recruits actively among British Pakistanis because they have British passports. No where in the article did I find the statement that the organization was located in "Muridke, Pakistan ". The source here also contradicts the my previously pointed out statement. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Islamic extermism isn't a proper noun so the title of the Islamic Extremism article and this one should be made lower-case. Secondly, as the Islamic extremism article is so short, a merge there might be a good idea. Or a retitle to Islamic extremism in Britain? Just some ideas I had. Good luck... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before we have a precedent justifying endless articles on negative stereotypes of various groups around the world. If this is kept, the term "Extremism" must go, or at least be defined. Extremism can mean many contradictory things, as it literally, it just means going to extremes. A true pacifist in a total war is an extremist. A true vegan amongst meat eaters is an extremist. Many people who are faithful to a religion consider themselves extremists, but don't go around murdering people. The article is just a good excuse to attack people. Any encyclopedic content that exists here could work equally well elsewhere. --Rob (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have numerous articles on discrimination and stereotypes. Your argument sounds like a good case for a retitle and careful editing, but doesn't address the notability established by reliable sources with substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to articles discrimination and stereotypes in general. I'm opposed to articles like this, which advance a very particular bias, against a particular group, which is inherent from their scope. I suppose one could fix the article by changing the title and all of the content. Of course, we could stop all article deletion, by simply retitling and changing all of the content of the article, and fixing scope. But at some point, if you have to change everything, you aught to just delete it. People keep saying it can be fixed, yet it's not fixed. There's still no definition of the word "extremism". What's it mean? Is the article to talk about all extremism. --Rob (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this is a deletion discussion and the notability of the topic is clear. The issue is titling and editing. I'm ready to boldly merge it, but doing so on a controversial topic before the AfD is resolved is often considered inappropriate. There is clearly substantial coverage of the issues involved in this subject, so we have to figure out how to deal with it appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were conceding that there are problems with WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:COATRACK, those are editing problems which are correctable and should be discussed on the article talk page, and not here because they are not grounds for an AfD. I understand that there are people who find the subject offensive, but that can not change the fact that the article does establish WP:notability. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not editing problems. When the subject is so non-neutral as to make compliance with WP:NPOV impossible (and thus making the article's subject a failure of WP:SYNTH), then it should be deleted. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and pay attention to this post by a Nangparbat Sock.[45]--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which I reverted right after it was posted. On top of that, it was sent to me after I had made my !vote above, so any canvassing here is irrelevant in respect to me. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as noted above by Rob "before we have a precedent justifying endless articles on negative stereotypes of various groups around the world." - a bit like say Race and crime. That the article does have sources is true but these I think should be in the British_Pakistani article which has an Allegations_of_Extremism section. Allegations of extremism, social issues and crime amongst particular communities should be adequately noted in that particular article, otherwise as far as I can see it ends up being a coatrack and probably a honeypot to all those of conflicting POVs. Pahari Sahib 12:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to British Pakistani sounds like a good idea. It should be discussed on the article discussion page. That's another good argument against deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
collapsing up section with accusations of canvassing containing no votes or discussion of the article itself
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Canvassing [46]. This sort of thing is called WP:canvassing, and is strongly discouraged by WP policy. Pahari Sahib clearly understands that because this message was immediately removed from his talk page....while, nevertheless, responding to the canvassing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err nope Malcolm both parties put messages on my page, don't try and judge my intentions or accuse me of acting against policy. I didn't immediately respond either. I carefully read the arguments for and against before adding my thoughts. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Canvassing again - it is a behavioural guideline for those doing the canvassing.
Pahari Sahib 18:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Malclm Schosha, if you had done some more research, the IP's comment on Pahari Sahib's page was page BEFORE this page was even created so next time try laying off the blame-game trying to accuse editors of wrong doing. Try to learn some good faith --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing, etc. - While this page has been heavily canvassed, please avoid implying that blame should fall on those who were canvassed. While it is likely the canvassing got the desired results, we can't tell who arrived here because of it and who arrived here through other clicks. Removing the pathetic rantings of blocked lunatic User:Nangparbat's sockpuppets (of which [these are just a few of the dozens she has made) from one's talk page (or from this page or from anywhere else) is something that any self-respecting editor would do, so please find no blame there either. We should feel appreciative of everyone who has opined here in good faith and civility whether or not they may have arrived due to circumstances which derail the fairness of the process. In related note, → Ãlways Ãhëad, your readiness to scream accusations of personal attack and bad faith assumptions at anyone who doesn't agree with you is something you should grow out of. I value your opinion here, please try to return the respect shown to you. --Boston (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can write in bold for no reason too. I admit that blocked user is annoying and should be dealt with. You have been asked to be civil and show good faith so do not lecture me on how to behave properly. And Boston would you repeatedly stop changing the topic of this debate for your personal gains? This article is up for deletion, not for you to come here and tell me how to behave. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:18, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 09:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial non-fiction books[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of controversial non-fiction books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of this list is too vague. It is impossible to objectively determine which books should be included and which excluded. It also has POV problems that seem inherent to the topic. See also my comments on the Talk page, the previous deletion discussion, and the first and second discussions on deleting [[:Category:Controversial books]]. Art Carlson (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry and thanks. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While there are, undeniably, books that are "controversial"-- just ask Salman Rushdie or for nonfiction, Frederic Wertham -- this strikes me as original synthesis and no small amount of POV on the part of the editors. Bluntly said, a book is controversial if it was "influential", but some people didn't like it. It would be possible to cure some of the OR problems by citing to published sources that have made their own lists of books that others have described as controversial. Interestingly, the article cites to such a list selectively, picking one of the 10 books on the list, illustrating the OR problem. I can't see putting a book on the such a list merely because it has been criticized. The first entry is Margaret Mead's book, on there because one author, Derek Freeman, wrote a criticism of it later. Of the two, Freeman's book would appear to be more controversial. Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First list I've !voted delete on for a while. A list has to have a defined topic that permits some reasonable conclusion about whether or not an item belongs. I do not see how one can be done for this list: A list including The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and origin of species makes very little sense; the books listed have all given rise to some sort of controversy, but there are in fact probably very few notable non fiction books that could not be included. Mead's book is an example of the difficulty: I think it belongs, because the controversy was not just in the academic world and involved important cultural issues, but Mandsford's disagreement with including it is equally reasonable. The listing of two books by Lomborg illustrates the use of this to give unreasonable prominence to an individuals views. Unlike most lists, I do not think the problems can be fixed by any degree of careful editing. DGG (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is highly subjective and it doesn't scratch the surface of what constitutes controversy. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In general I dislike lists like these, but I think this one should be kept. The first reason is that it makes interesting reading. My other reason is that inclusion on this list does not involve much of a POV judgment compared with the following. I'd like to see List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, which is massively POV, scrapped, and the corresponding books put here instead. I'd treat the "examples" in Pseudohistory and Pseudoarchaeology similarly. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "controversial" raises inherent POV issues and potential scope issues. If there is not a universal definition of 'controversial' then this is inherently POV. 69.210.42.241 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete good lord. What decent book isn't controvsial to somebody, non fiction or otherwise. The whole assesment of what might belong here is a POV exercise, highly subjective, and beyond the scope of this project.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is simply point of view clutter/listcruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (WP:IINFO) List is too vague and just seems like a bad excuse for the mother of all edit wars.--Sloane (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge: Merge with List of banned books Jwray (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contraversial to whom? when? useless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Per DGG's concerns. What is controversial can be subjective except these are notable books so their moments of controversial-ness are at least somewhat documentable. If however it's a ridiculous list to maintain because so many notable books could be sourced as controversial it may dilute the use the list itself. This is a similar concern if this were a category instead. I suggest a stay of execution then and a bit of soul searching to what reasonable and intuitive changes could be affected to filter out a list article that would serve our readers and remain policy compliant. I'm not convinced that deleting it is the way to go but neither is keeping an article that really isn't illuminating controversial material. For instance, an article delving into the most politically controversial books might be feasible if it were limited to notable books and confined to notable political movements. Even then maintaining it would likely be a challenge. -- Banjeboi 07:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it makes for an interesting read there is no special logic in bringing together this handful of books when, as others have pointed out here, almost every important non-fiction book has generated some kind of controversy. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has references to backup each claim. Perhaps the title should be List of notable controversial non-fiction books, since it doesn't list just any controversial book. Had to have a certain level of impact somewhere. Dream Focus 12:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG w/nod to others. This would seem to be an exercise in agitprop and does not seem fixable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an indiscriminate list. What book hasn't been considered controversial ever? ThemFromSpace 23:44, 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 Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz talk 23:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PIRA Constitution[edit]

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

While Wikipedia has many articles on constitutions, Wikipedia is not in the habit of keeping full-text constitutions - that's the job of Wikisource, if anything. I recommend this article be transwikied to Wikisource (something I have no experience in, so I'm not doing it myself), then deleted from Wikipedia. If, and only if, this article were to be kept, it should be about this constitution, as is the case of e.g. United States Constitution, which is better done with a clean slate rather than using the actual entire constitution as a starting point. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 08:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems an easy transwiki to either Wikisource or Wikibooks, whichever is more appropriate (I too tend to refrain from the sister projects). No encyclopedia would have an article like this.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • tw speedily Sceptre (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per nom. JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went ahead and tagged this to be transwiki'd to wikisource. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyright violation. Yes, it's been reprinted in a few books, but they would probably claim it as fair use as being necessary to a critical commentary. Simply reproducing this constitution as a stand-alone document is not allowable as fair use whether it's in Wikipedia or Wikisource. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pussycat Dolls: Greatest Hits[edit]

The Pussycat Dolls: Greatest Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing nom for ip editor - reason given, Article is Hoax and no reliable sources exist. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:25, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris_Woollams[edit]

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

Unreferenced self-promotion / advertorial topazg (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. The charity he founded, Canceractive, may be notable though (about 100 Google news hits for Canceractive). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I think the founder of a known charity is notable. If you don't like the way the article is written - fix it! Puca (talk)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge the relevant text to Canceractive, which might be notable ([47], [48]). No other activities appear to have received significant coverage by reliable sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:49, 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 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciguatera (manga)[edit]

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

Non-notable manga. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ciguatera (manga). 6 Vol series by Minoru Furuya. ANN. No licensor in UK/US, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. I'm holding my vote as this article was created less than 24 hours ago by a new user and already in Afd. This user at first passed by the anime/manga requested article department [49] then opted to create the article himself/herself. This article already withstanded a speedy delation A1. I knew that Wikipedia like to warmly welcome new user but that one is a hellish fire welcome. --KrebMarkt 07:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You shouldn't try to delete something its first day out. People are working on it now, so just leave it be. Dream Focus 13:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely fails WP:BK. Unnotable manga series with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Whether its an editors first article is completely irrelevant and a red-herring to the argument, particularly when this request WAS already rejected. They also noted on the talk page "I just made this page to at least get some other input on this manga." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't rejected just that this contributor didn't wait for our assessment and yes it would have failed in my assessment --KrebMarkt 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep manga from notable artist (Minoru Furuya, creator of Ping-Pong Club), published by Japan's biggest publisher (Kodansha), and long enough to be collected in 3 books. I'm not really seeing what the problem here is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not meet WP:BK. Notability of the author is certainly not so significant that all their works are instantly notable, and who publishes it is completely irrelevant in this case. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manga can't inherit the notabity of its author nor the notability of another manga of that same author. This won't help to write verifiable article content wise. Better use that prize as argument of notability for the author article or for Ping-Pong Club. --KrebMarkt 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it didn't win anything, and one minor mention does not make it notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the weakest archievement of that festival, see Japan Media Arts Festival. Only the Grand, Excellence and Encouragement prizes are worth mention. --KrebMarkt 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who came up with that standard? _dk (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Which part of WP:BK does this pass? I think I may be missing something with so many keep voters. Can someone clarify please? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 14:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given enough time for people to inform me of how this passes WP:BK. After researching, looking for both English and Japanese sources, I was unable to find any and will therefore vote delete. However, I wish to warn the nominator of this AfD against nominating articles this quickly. I suggest waiting at least a week before using AfD or PROD templates. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The jury recommendation is the only thing I'm finding in English for this series, aside from scanlations -- hardly even any forum buzz. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Non-notable and stupid does not belong in an encyclopedia. Puca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Please try to use arguments other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT] please. FingersOnRoids♫ 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi all I'm the one who created the article. I read the rules for posting a new article and I thought I had followed them, but I guess I had overlooked some stuff such as the notability of the content.The reason I decided to create the article is really simple: When I was once searching for information on this title years ago, all I ever found was an article on fish poison. I had no clue as to what this manga was about but was curious about what it was all about. I had no other way of knowing what it was about other than reading the manga for myself and I thought I would share this information so that if anyone else were to try looking for Ciguatera on wikipedia then they would not just be lead to an article on fish poisoning, they would at least know that it was a manga and who it was created by. I know that my attemps at a summary will win no awards, and I didn't expect them to, I just wanted other interested readers to have an idea as to what the book is about.
Also I've had this account for a few years, but never bothered logging into it, rather I would just edit it as a guest. I've been adding small edits to wikipedia for a while now (Like small updates and obvious grammatical/factual errors or expanding on under developed points. Since I started school though the college IP has been blocked from making edits so I was forced to login. So yes it was my first major article written, but not my first time editing.
Also I just read over the notability and it says clearly on point 5 that: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable."
The author Minoru Furuya Did indeed win an award in 1996. I do believe that that counts as historically significant?
--BOMEz (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that does not count as being historically significant. Historical significant is significance in history (like Shakespeare) and/or it seen as a pioneer, notable among peers, etc. Not a minor contemporary author who won a one time award.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BK says for Non-contemporary books

From a pragmatic standpoint, the vast majority of books upon which articles are written which invite a notability judgment call and which find their way to articles for deletion, are from the modern era. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. 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.

So, ignore all the points it doesn't make, and focus on a more common sense approach. Focus on the fame its had, thus, its sales figures(enough to publish 6 volumes someone said), and being featured in a massively popular and influential manga magazine. I'd say this article is a definite keeper. Dream Focus 21:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very clearly not for this book, it specifically speaks to older works which this is not. Again, no valid reason to ignore the normal WP:BK criteria that all other manga can easily meet, nor does "non-contemporary" allow for any such criteria as you slated, which are specifically not allowed by consensus at WP:BK. Sales figures irrelevant, regardless of age, nor can you claim to "focus on the fame it once had" when it IS a contemporary book and still on-going. Obviously falls within the standard WP:BK criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked up what the word contemporary meant. Nevermind. Thought it meant something else. I still say keep, do the rules of common sense, it seldom manga gets mentioned in the reviews, so the notability guidelines are unfairly bias against them. Dream Focus 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The manga is licensed in Taiwan and Hong Kong under two separate publishers. _dk (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recall this getting quite a bit of buzz at the time. Might be worth scouring Japanese sites and trying to find a source or two. If only Japanese newspapers kept archives online...borderline books like this would actually have a shot. Doceirias (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searches for the manga's title and author's name in both English and Kanji/Kana are not coming up with any useful hits to indicate coverage by reliable sources. It may be a potential redirect to the author's article, but there is nothing here to merge as the article is entirely a plot summary. --Farix (Talk) 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The searches didn't even come up with the Japanese Media Arts Festival jury recommendation? I agree that it isn't enough to demonstrate notability on its own, but it is coverage, and if it didn't show up that makes your searches seem not entirely reliable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Barry[edit]

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

Potentially fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep principal cast member on the somewhat notable series Mine All Mine, though that's about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This article is of a notable person and I agree that it should be retained. Puca (talk) 17:27, 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 MBisanz talk 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aapu[edit]

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

Declined speedy. Non-notable neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:54, 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 A7 by Jimfbleak , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Select Business Solutions[edit]

Select Business Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Removing from the speedy deletion db-spam queue. It's not written like a brochure, but there are multiple issues to address at AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Unreferenced article about a non-consumer software business with absolutely no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as db-corp A7Porturology (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Rents Now Coalition[edit]

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

Wikipedia ain't here to host activist websites. The topic of this article has no lasting encyclopedic notability and is clearly doing nothing more than promoting the campaign (whose internet presence is a promotional website and a facebook group with 158 members). As a student at the University in question, I'd never even heard of the "organization" until I came across the article. The main author has some WP:CoI problems here (without saying any more, facebook clears it up, but see photo upload). Note, the guy's website actually links the wikipage from its mainpage (http://lowerrentsnow.org). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This is made tough because there are a load of references, but I'm not sure I saw any of them that qualify as WP:RS. More importantly, a simple mention in a paper isn't enough. If there's some widespread coverage in a notable source, then it should stay. Someone should point those out now though. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, for transparency: I am a member of this group. I dispute the basis for this AfD request. Let me systematically go through the reasoning.
Claim: "Wikipedia ain't here to host activist websites". Wikipedia is not hosting an activist website here. There is a link to Lower Rents Now Coalition from [51], but: so what? The website for this group is entirely at said link, and spread across multiple pages of content.
Claim: "whose internet presence is a promotional website and a facebook group with 158 members". Of course our official Internet presence includes a promotional website! Regarding facebook groups, these aren't ever considered a reliable/notable source; e.g. "I just lost the game" has 100,000 members, but that was considered irrelevant to showing the notability of The Game (mind game). (Also, the figure given was wrong: it is currently 185, not 158). But if you're implying the only internet mention of this group is the above, then I dispute that, which I'll do in more detail below.
Claim: the topic of this article has "no lasting encyclopedic notability". Please read WP:NOTE: "Notability is not temporary. If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". Additionally, coverage (so far) ranges from February 2007 to March 2009, over two years. Pndapetzim says, "I'd never even heard of the "organization" until I came across the article". Um, so? That fact that you have not heard of something does not prove something is not notable, even though you live in St Andrews. Again, I will go into coverage and notability more below.
Pndapetzim says, "The main author has some WP:CoI problems here". OK, I admit that CoI editing is "strongly discouraged" (though not banned). However, I reckon more important to consider than CoI is the effect of a CoI, which is an increased possibility of bias (especially because WP:NPOV is a "fundamental" principal, not something which is just "strongly" recommended cf. CoI). The thing is, I would maintain this article has real substance, so where there are neutrality problems, it would be better to fix those (by e.g. by expanding the article by elaborating on 'the other side' is, or at least pointing out specifically the bits that have NPoV problems, or otherwise) than to delete the entire article. When I made my first change to this article, I acknowledged my potential bias, and encouraged someone without such a CoI to ensure the article meets NPoV (see [52]).
Now, regarding notability and reliability of sources, which Shadowjams was interested in. There is multiple coverage in The Courier, a mainstream newspaper, with circulation 80,000, according to the its Wikipedia page). We can find three of the Courier articles online. In chronological order: [53], [54], [55]. In addition, there was coverage on 10 and 11 December 2008 (you could probably buy a back issue if you want). Quoting WP:NOTE, "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence [of notability]". I claim that these Courier articles (maybe particularly the middle linked one), including the ones only available in print, meet the WP:NOTE criterion of "Significant coverage" (the definition: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive"). Also, the articles likely meet WP:NOTE the criteria of being "Reliable" (since they were in a mainstream newspaper), and are "Sources", because they are a secondary sources, and "Independent of the subject", as they are in a mainstream, commercial, newspaper. Note these Courier articles are not opinion pieces.
Other hints of notability, especially to counter the implication in the deletion request that the entire campaign is merely "the [one] guy's" unnoticable project: The group from the page up for deletion has been discussed multiple times by the Students Association at the university in question (see [56]). Also, the planning application the university put in was opposed by hundreds of students (see [57]). After the St Andrews Community Council was approached by the group (see: [58]), the Community Council also objected to the planning application (see [59]). This is not completely un-notable, because the St Andrews Community Council is considered by (Fife) Council to be a "Consultee" (not just an ordinary person/group), when considering planning applications and the like. (See the word "Consultee" in the row near the top of [60] for the document titled "CONSULTATION RESPONSE", published 09 Dec 2008.)
Almost finally, I would consider a lot of the content on the university's website about accommodation redevelopment, at [61], to be in response to the negative publicity generated by the group in question against the university's accommodation plans. Also, this month, there was an opinion piece by a member of the group (er, me) in the magazine St Andrews in Focus, which has distribution of over 7000 and estimated readership over 25,000, according to [62].
In summary, coverage the group in question's letters and opinion pieces have not been insignificant; coverage has lasted over two years; hundreds of students have been involved (there was also a petition in association with the students association, which got over 1,000 signatures (see page 5 of [63], or the Courier articles), or roughly 17% of the student body at the time. Importantly, there has also been plenty of detailed, repeated, secondary, non-biased mainstream coverage in regional papers. Nicol (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of all the sources provided in the article, I could only find 4 which actually are about this organization ([64][65][66][67]), the rest is a big load of WP:SYNTH. These are all news stories covering a series of small protests. In all of the news articles, the sources do not do more than mention the organization, mostly in passing when a member is quoted. As such, the organization has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:ORG. -Atmoz (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the well-argued points made by Atmoz. Eusebeus (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete echoing Atmoz, I don't feel this meets the bar of significant coverage. Maralia (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would have to concur with Nicol above, although I, too, am a member of the group. I feel that he has answered the concerns about significant coverage very well. Basically, the group's been covered in well-circulated local-area newspapers several times in the past few years, members of the group have had letters in national papers, and the group has led relatively large actions (protests and planning application objections) which have mobilised a significant proportion of the student body. It has also met with several key members of University staff and Students Union officials to negotiate on the issue. Perhaps the article could be edited to be a bit more neutral, but this can be done and deletion avoided, in my view. Josherick3 (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Atmoz Power.corrupts (talk) 13:19, 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 23:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telly Hughes[edit]

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

Sideline sports reporter but no assertion of notability. I speedied once (at the title of Telly hughes), upon recreation a speedy nomination (by another user) was contested. Only 600 Google hits. Esteffect (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A Google search didn't turn up much. One very minor mention I saw showed Hughes hasn't even had his position for more than a couple weeks.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

***Delete - no assertion of notability. CopaceticThought (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. I rewrote and referenced the article, which was previously inaccurate garbage. Subject has been a sports anchor at multiple regional sports networks and has done some radio work. Reliable source coverage exists, (e.g. Gnews hits) but is pretty thin -- there are a couple of mentions in Jet and the New York Times which give a nudge out of purely routine news coverage. He did win a 2008 regional Emmy Award, but I don't know that that alone is enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. if the article does wind up getting deleted, at least we've got an accurate bio for Deletionpedia :) Baileypalblue (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is pages about "famous figures" as significant as famous as Lindsey Thomise at Deletionpedia, not really making it a point worth raising. The fact the New York Times article has "Minority Journalist" in the title says a lot to me. Esteffect (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • for clarity, the "deletionpedia" comment was meant to be a joke at my own expense, not a reflection on anyone else or on the AFD. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep after rewrite of article. CopaceticThought (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Mason[edit]

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

Apparent violation of WP:BLP1E (article was created shortly after MyTravel/footballer incident). Rd232 talk 04:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - enough evidence of notability provided here that BLP1E no longer applies; expansion of article and adding sources needed instead. Rd232 talk 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While it is certainly possible for a single event to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, I don't see anything outstanding in this guy's life history at all, other than a history of making bad decisions over and over again in the cockpit. Proxy User (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable unless he writes an autobiography that takes off. Redddogg (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he has written a notable autobiography. . . Rcawsey (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacking evidence that he has written a notable autobiography. Nothing else.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete brief blip in the news for getting fired as a pilot for breaking the rules. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Interesting and notable. Puca (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No, I'm sorry, but he was not very prominent during the First Gulf War. Where do you get this stuff? Proxy User (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know where you were during the war, but he appeared in the British media all the time. He was adopted as something of a poster boy for the RAF due to his resemblance to WWII fighter pilots. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. An interesting and important Officer from the first Gulf War. He has written an autobigraphical account of the War and led many missions during the war. It's important that Wikipedia maintains articles on important military figures such azs this man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.73.56 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonesense - There is no evidence that what you say with respect to this guy has any relitionship to reality. Web searches certainly don't support it. Proxy User (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Web searches! Oh good grief, why would a web search support anything? He was prominent before the internet really got going in a big way. Using web searches as evidence for the notability of anyone who was prominent before the last decade is spurious in the extreme. Effectively you're saying that the notability threshold of anyone who (or anything which) was around before the internet is much, much higher, which is ludicrous. For anything before the mid-1990s (at the earliest), the web only holds information on subjects which people have chosen to write about! It is not gospel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In practice the interwebs is WP's primary source of verifiable information. Because of this the notability of people notable pre-web is harder to verify; if you have a solution for that, let me know! You can provide offline sources for this case if you have them, but your vague remarks about watching TV are merely WP:OR. Rd232 talk 12:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this is not true at all. There are things called books and newspapers. I use them for writing Wikipedia articles all the time. In fact, I use them more than internet sources, since they tend to be far more reliable. No policy on Wikipedia says that web-based sources are any more valid than print sources. And this is an AfD discussion - like too many people you are confusing Verifiability, which determines what we put in articles, with Notability, which determines whether we have an article in the first place. They are entirely different things. Verifiability arguments are irrelevant here, since we can easily verify that the man exists; all that matter are notability arguments - whether he is significant enough to have an article on WP. That's what we're discussing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting off topic here, but (a) I merely said the internet is the primary source in practice, not that this was ideal (don't think I implied that either). (b) WP:NOBJ: Notability needs to be verified from reliable sources - this is basic, we don't rely on unsourced assertions of notability. (c) Again, if you have relevant offline or online sources, please cite them. Rd232 talk 15:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • His existence is verifiable. The fact he has been in the news is verifiable. Whether that coverage makes him notable, however, is subjective. That's the thing about notability - there are no hard and fast rules. That's why we have these debates. How on earth, therefore, could I cite a source that proves he, or anybody or anything else, is notable? That's the ridiculous thing about the deletionists who blithely say "prove he's notable". You simply can't prove or disprove something so subjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there's an element of interpretation of guidelines, but the guidelines are clear: notability needs showing from sources (WP:NOBJ) and notability relating to one event should be discounted (WP:BLP1E). Rd232 talk 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The primary claim of the nominator that this is BLP1E is simply not accurate. There is coverage of Mason's service in the Gulf War, coverage of the accident in Germany, and coverage of the situation with Robbie Savage. The subject meets WP:BIO and is not WP:BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are only 2 sources not relating to the MyTravel incident and it is not clear that either is a reliable source; certainly the Promotions one isn't. The RAF Accident Report is a primary source which doesn't demonstrate notability. Rd232 talk 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are many other sources about his time in the Gulf War though. See for example [68][69][70]. Even if I were to discount the accident there are more than enough sources about his time in the Gulf War. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, not sure what to do now. That looks the start of showing Gulf War notability; with those in the article I wouldn't have AFD'd it. Not sure how to withdraw the nomination now (and maybe should let it finish now anyway). Rd232 talk 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The original nom's complaint was of a violation of WP:BLP1E. I also remember Mason being the RAF's poster boy during the Gulf War, however I doubt publications for this exist online. I have found at least three unrelated newspaper articles, from different years, with no mention of the MyTravel incident 1998, 2006, 2007. It seems Mason's self-styled "Biggles" antics have had him (and will probably continue to do so) popping up time and time again. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A genuinely interesting chap notable for his role in the Gulf War, and we haven't heard the last of him. Not a violation of WP:BLP1E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.210.180 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above IP has only contributed to this AFD (Please replace this message with that template they use in these circumstances). Ryan4314 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very prominent in the media during the first Gulf War. --Jolyonralph (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as the originator of the article, I vote keep for the same reason I created it (1) his significance as a Squadron Leader in the first gulf war, which is well referenced particularly off-net, (2) the significance of the case to air safety procedures, which is wholly referenced on-net to him. Nomination on a WP:BLP1E because it was created after the MyTravel created enough on-net references ignores his gulf war service, or the significance of the case to air law - or to HR law. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, now, but it needs much better sourcing. Rd232 talk 19:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good news, Rd232 how would you feel about withdrawing your nomination, or do you think the article still needs work? I would imagine it'll take a longer to dig up paper sources, longer than the time-limit left on this AFD I fear, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to withdraw the nomination, and I think a closing admin will draw a fair conclusion from the above discussion. Rd232 talk 00:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can ask any admin to do it, or even just put a little note under your nomination up there :) Ryan4314 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done! Rd232 talk 01:21, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homosocratic[edit]

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

Utter neologism. Google had never heard the word before this article arrived. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep per nom common sense warrants an exception. an obvious conjunctive construct typical of those used in academic publications. scottprovost (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many people in a number of countries are discussing laws related to Homosocratic or professorless institutions of higher education.

I will be happy to tell them that Wikipedia has decided that it is not a word. I understand that you work for universities and the threat of free education scares you. But Wikipedia is not the hoar of the universities or big business. Just because goodle does not have the word means nothing. Google has gone commercial and is not listing sites that do not pay them now. Try to find Free MIT on google. Try to find Free A&M University. They are gone from google but have hundreds of students.

Just leave the word and go fight Freedom and Open Communication elsware. You are the reason for the term wikinazzis. You will find that term on google but not on Wikipedia.Scottprovost (talk) Scottprovost (talk) Scottprovost (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Not entirely true. This Google search tells me that "Scott Provost is the Founder and operator of Free A&M University". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, all mention of Free A&M University was removed from Wikipedia by this Wikinazzi bacause it didn't appear on Google. Scottprovost (talk)

I am today removing the dead (no article linked) reference from list for "* Free A&M University, located in Texas, USA;" because after exhaustive search I have found:

1.) Texas A&M is not "free" and does require tuition.

2.) Texas A&M does not appear to promote any usage of the term "free" in their own self-description.

3.) There does not appear to be a free "agricultural and mechanical" or "A&M" "university" anywhere in Texas, USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.33.234.149 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

that IP address traces to a person who sells CLEP exams under the guise of a free university in violation of Georgia Law similar to the law in Texas we argue we are not subject to. We sell nothing. Quit using Google as a standard. It is no longer.

The term was used at the Institute for General Semantics who publishes General Semantics Bulletin. The publication is not available on the internet and they are not certain the discussion at the conference was included in any publications. They also indicated that just because someone used the obvious conjunction homo-Socratic did not make it a word. They insist that it would be an obvious conjunction and most certainly used over the years but may require a hyphen to be proper. I will continue to look for a better siting Scottprovost (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

As of March 16th 2009 I have not been able to find any references to the word that do not trace back to me. The discussion at the IGS was related to another word autosocratic that is also a created word. It too is an obvious conjunction and both words were being used in the context of discussing neologisms even though they did not use that term. If someone used the term without hearing it from me, I am not aware of it. They insist that it must be a good word with an obvious definition and useful as a quality neologism. But that it should be moved to wherever Wikipedia keeps neologisms until it is accepted into use.

We have students in many countries that use the term when explaining the type of school they go to but they got it from me. I honestly thought it was a real word. Someone even gave me a definition for it.

Whenever I use the term in academic circles, there is no need to give a definition, everyone knows what it means without being told. I think this may be an exception to the rule and may in fact be a word by virtue of it's obvious meaning independent of weather anyone uses it or not.

Maybe Google is not God?

I vote that we let the word exist as an obvious and useful conjunctive word with only one possible meaning that is obvious tomost all who hear it. Scottprovost (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment - If Homosocratic is truly a concept discussed in scholarly circles, it would be highly unlikely it wouldn't be found in Google. Do you happen to have any reliable sources supporting your claims that "people in a number of countries are discussing laws related to Homosocratic or professorless institutions of higher education"? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. —Angr 06:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to resolve the claims of importance (or even existence) with the utter lack of anything on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced neologism. Note to article author: it's not that "Wikipedia has decided that it is not a word" - it's undoubtedly a word, but it's a new word and there is no evidence but your assertion that it is in widespread use. Google scholar does not find it. Wikipedia isn't a place for first publication of anything - see No original research and Articles on neologisms and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I did a search (for "homosocratic", "homo-socratic" and "homo socratic") through academic databases (i.e. Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, Project Muse, and others) and found 0 hits. As JohnCD stated, there's no dispute that it's a word, but it's a new word and falls under original research. Start publishing and maybe it will catch on. I may find use for it myself. Who knows, but for now it's a neologism. freshacconci talktalk 11:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are Google results for the word
PALAVRA PUXA PALAVRA: "Ingenuidade" por Cerejinha
- [ Translate this page ]
Para o HomoSocrates aproveitar para incentivar a NATALIDADE, em vez da HOMOSACRAUNIÃO. 17/1/09; Blogger Cerejinha said... Olá...olá. ...
http://outrostemas.blogspot.com/2009/01/ingenuidade-por-cerejinha.html - 23k -
I do not read the language but it is from January 17th :69.39.49.27 (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a blog, which is not considered a reliable source; also, I don't think it's relevant: (a) they are discussing, not education, but a rather kitsch statuette, and (b) the word used is not "homosocratic" but "HomoSocrates", with capitalisation which suggests it is the username of another blogger. JohnCD (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As JohnCD said, the blog is completely unrelated, homosacraunião is a play on words (sacra união = sacred union) referring to the kitsch statuette. - delete, obviously fails WP:V Power.corrupts (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 08:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skruff[edit]

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

Marginally notable band. Some evidence of minimal third-party coverage, but yet to publish an album. Marginal on WP:BAND, hence the AfD. CultureDrone (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: mostly it's myspace type sites they're on. -- Mentifisto 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing position. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now added four references. The article by Minihan from The Belfast Telegraph is entirely about the band. There is evidence of touring and national radio play in the UK. There is enough here now for WP:MUSIC criterion #1, so keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted because article was improved, and not enough time has passed to allow contributors to reconsider. (4 hours isn't enough time) Xclamation point 03:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Paul Erik, what is the second Belfast Telegraph article like? Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a brief mention, really not much more than the descriptor I added to the article. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How?  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, along with the ref's Paul Erik has added, here are a few more; bbc.co.uk gig review, radio 1, bbc radio ulster, bbc radio foyle, derry journal, and a slightly trivial mention in the belfasttelegraph. More than enough there to pass WP:MUSIC#C1.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've not heard of them but looking through some of the links makes me think they are probably more notable than initially thought. Also, I note that the speedy deletion was put up within two hours of the article's creation. It has been fleshed out a little since. I also note there's an article in Hot Press (subscription only), and get a decent mention in the Strabane Chronicle. I would therefore recommend that perhaps we wait and see how this article develops before deleting it too hastily. Tris2000 (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be enough independent coverage to satisfy requirements at WP:MUSIC.Nrswanson (talk) 04:47, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audiophonic visual isolation[edit]

Audiophonic visual isolation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Extensive searches for sources verifying this content yield nothing. The article fails to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nrswanson (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is no evidence that suggests these two men are the same people.Nrswanson (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Broadweighbabe. The content is entirely unsourced so I think a merger is a bad idea. Inmysolitude (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't google particularly well for WP:N at just 166 hits [71] -- Constructive editor (talk) 19:32, 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. The original author blanked the page, which I am taking as a CSD:G7 request. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Bhola Nathji[edit]

Shri Bhola Nathji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

From the words of RayAYang (talk · contribs) in his prod nomination:

Subject appears to exist (large number of ghits); nonetheless, this article appears to fail WP:V and WP:BIO. Gnews wasn't able to find anything on him, Gscholar was similarly unavailing, and Gbooks turned up a single book by the subject. Searching no "Shri Nathji" is perilous since that is the name of a major Hindu religion that definitely predates the subject.

NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira 2009 Tour[edit]

Shakira 2009 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As far as I can tell, this is both crystalballing and lacking in notability. Biruitorul Talk 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misa Kobayashi[edit]

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

Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:N. Failed prod and CSD A7 with both tags removed by User:Dream Focus (non-administrator) with reasons of "has worked as a voice actor on several notable series" and "I object. An actor in three notable series gets an article, so why not voice actors the same way?". Only three minor roles, no sources, and no significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User X! also erased the tag[72], which clearly states, anyone who disagrees with it should do so. You don't have to be an administrator. And why bring that up here? Anyway, I vote *Keep since the person has played a notable part in a significant body of work. Dream Focus 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is appropriate to note that an article is a failed Prod and CSD and that the CSD was declined by a non-admin. Also X! is an administrator so it was fine for him to remove it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he said in his edit "rv, csds can be removed by anyone, not just admins.)" Dream Focus 10:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Chizuru Naba does not seem to be a notable character, barely mentioned on List of Negima!: Magister Negi Magi characters , Lilith Sahl is listed as supporting on List of Trinity Blood characters, and I can't find a Hiromi anywhere on the collection of Hell Girl articles, with the exception of an artist who worked on the soundtracks. Which character is the notable one? ~Itzjustdrama C ? 02:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had a look at this as well and agree with your listed findings on the roles mentioned in the article currently. I did find an additional role not listed on the subject's page but it is listed on the page of the series and seems more significant. The series is Kurau Phantom Memory and it seems the subject voiced one of the main characters (Christmas). There are some other roles listed here but I don't really know enough about anime to know if any others listed are significant. Camw (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the notable role count is two so far now. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick search of the roles and it seems like the Negima and Kurau Phantom Memory role are notable. I'm not sure about Wan Wan Serebu Soreyuke! Tetsunoshin as I have no idea what that's about. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone here can read Japanese, is this the same person and are there any other roles listed here -> [73] that might be notable? I know another Wiki page isn't a reliable source, but if there is anything of value on that page it might make it easier to look for other sources to check. Camw (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiromi is a one-episode character that appears in episode 9. No other role in the series beyond that. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that on the ANN entry. And I finally found Chizuru. Those Negima character lists need cleaning. There's only one notable role. The ANN entry lists the rest as minor. I'm leaning toward Delete unless more notable roles can be dug up. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources that establish notability. --Sloane (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've added a more complete filmography to the article. However, judging from the list Chizuru Naba is still her most significant role, even if the character is a minor character in the whole Nagima! franchise. --Farix (Talk) 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - If the filmography is accurate, seems to me Kobayashi meets the threshold for an up-and-coming voice actor. It's a close call, but I think we should err on the side of inclusion. Proxy User (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I tend toward inclusion on seiyū, but the roles listed in this case are exceedingly minor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pernom: no clear notability. Eusebeus (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more reliable third-party reference sources can be provided to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When all is said and done, she has only had one significant voice acting role (Christmas in Kurau: Phantom Memory). Her role as Chizuru Naba in the various Negima! series isn't that significant as the character is simply a reoccurring background character. This isn't enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. --Farix (Talk) 02:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notable roles yet. No prejudice against recreation should this change in the future. Edward321 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: referenced roles in 14 works notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. So the article must meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline for entertainers, which reads "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". T L Miles (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note the requirement of "significant roles"; all except one of those roles was exceedingly minor. Its also not sourced to a reliable reference. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query: I can't seem to find an entry for www.animenewsnetwork.com on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Could you point me to that as well as the definition of "significant roles" in WP:ENTERTAINER? Thanks. T L Miles (talk) 02:27, 21 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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Island Defense[edit]

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

Doesn't explain why it is notable, no sourcing, unencyclopedic. TheAE talk/sign 02:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable; no references are given, and the general state and tone of the article give me little reason to believe they exist. The company has no hits on Google News. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable Warcraft 3 map. A few maps break the surface of notability (DotA, for instance), but this one does not by any means. Incidentally, Drmies, there's no company involved - "Yacapo & Dildamesh" are in all likelihood the online nicknames of two of its creators. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks, shows you what an expert I am. (Oh, so "game" means "map"!) Company or people, they didn't register on Google. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:02, 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.

I propose that this article be redirected to the page for Cheryl Burke herself. Her small business does not meet notability requirements and reads like an advertisement.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 request, DGG (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Caldwell[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character from likely non-notable fictional series. — neuro(talk) 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete concur with nom.--the play series itself seems local and nn, so the unsourced article on this character also is nn. JJL (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The play that is referenced is a local New York City production, but one that's getting a lot of press, and continued sold out shows. The future of this show is bright, both in the theatrical sense and beyond. And I will add sources to article as well.Wrongallday (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)wrongallday[reply]
  • Even so, how does this character in particular establish notability outside of the production? — neuro(talk) 04:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I picked this character from the production because he had an interesting story that the writers happen to mix with real life characters, and he was the driving force in the story. Would it be more appropriate to establish the page as the entire production itself, which has run for over 12 months in NYC, and has a rapid fan base (that will hopefully go beyond the theatre production into possible planned film adaptations?)— Wrongallday(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.252.97 (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can provide press coverage of that show, a general article on the show, including the set of characters and the respective actors might actually be of interest and constitute a notable article. De728631 (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment thanks for adding the reviews! I think you'd have a better chance at making a case for the notability of the show series itself (which might require more third-pary sources than are currently in it to establish its notability per Wikipedia standards). The current text could be merged there and this set to redirect to that page. JJL (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The character alone is not notable. De728631 (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added reviews, articles, and websites showing it's growing popularity and general interest in the show, helping to prove that it's a general notable article. If need be, the article can also be changed to be about the "Penny Dreadful" episodes itself, not just character Leslie Caldwell.Wrongallday (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)wrongallday[reply]
  • Note multiple vote. JJL (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, after reading all of this, that the article about the show should have been written first, so I agree. Delete the article I posted.. Wrongallday
done. DGG (talk) 23:53, 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 23:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UMAUD Environment and Natural Resources studies[edit]

UMAUD Environment and Natural Resources studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UMAUD - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per previous discussion, also unnotable LetsdrinkTea 00:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn; I don't see anything worth merging, but if so then merge anything of value and rd to University of Iceland. JJL (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Academic departments and similar teaching programs need to have particularly good evidence of notability, and this has none at all. My own concept of the level of notability needed is very close to "famous". As there is no one unit of the university to merge it into, it will need to go in the main article for the university. DGG (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should say that the above is the view I have been taking, and I believe the Accepted view. I am wondering--just wondering-- if it might not be more reasonable to actually permit & encourage pages on all departments of major universities at least--probably as combination articles. The information is as stable as most topics here, and the material is not without general interest, at least to those who think the academic world important. DGG (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would that do more than mirror the school's web site? What additional insight could WP add about Oberlin College's Political Science dept., for example? JJL (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge information as appropriate into two existing articles, University of Iceland and Brynhildur Davidsdottir. The second article has recently been created by the creator of this article, and this is the professor who is the director of this project. In general, special academic programs attract money and attention to the same extent the director(s) of the program can, and borrow from each other's notability, so it makes sense to me to be weighing notability for both in the same article. I'm also open to DGG's idea; if there's ever a separate article on the relevant department at this university, that would also be a logical target for a merge of some of the information. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:25, 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 South Dennis, Massachusetts. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N. H. Wixon Middle School[edit]

N. H. Wixon Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable school, I do not find significant coverage of this in reliable sources, and I cannot find an article to merge this into. Enigmamsg 00:26, 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 Zons. MBisanz talk 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War of pigs[edit]

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

Can't find any resources. Maniamin (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any sources either, and the German Wikipedia doesn't seem to have anything about it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There does appear to be a fountain in Zons commemorating the event, but searching for "Schweinefehde +Zons" doesn't turn up anything that looks like a reliable source. Perhaps merge something about this into the (currently empty) "History" section of the Zons article, treating it as a local legend? Deor (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Thanks, Deor: "Schweinefehde" is the keyword I was searching for. It means "Pig Feud", not "Pig War". Apparently it was in 1577. There's not enough material there for a separate article, though. Merge to Zons.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone did write "a merry historical play" (ein lustig-historisches Spiel) about it in the 1930s. :-) Deor (talk) 21:00, 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 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - If deleted, this should probably redirect to Pig War. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merger with the chief article on Zons may be the best way to go here. The sources found, while suboptimal, seem adequate to establish the existence of a monument to this historic conflict, the date, and the existence of a local legend. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 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 08:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Scott[edit]

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

Question of notability Maniamin (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable. Searches are complicated by other Emma Scotts, a garden designer and the managing director of Freesat; for this one I don't find much more than her own website and her radio station's website, not the substantial coverage by independent reliable sources that we look for. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Besides failing notability as mentioned above, it also is completely unsourced. Valley2city‽ 04:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Nas Demo Tape[edit]

Nasty Nas Demo Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested on the grounds that the Wikipedia article is the only source that attests to the album's existence. That would make the article original research. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:29, 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, MBisanz talk 00:08, 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 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dijana Drasko Klancnik[edit]

Dijana Drasko Klancnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability Maniamin (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO, can't find any news coverage, and only mention of her is advertising from her modeling agency. Nothing sets her apart from the thousands of other models in the world and makes her notable. FingersOnRoids 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 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 00:08, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oprah (MADtv sketch)[edit]

Oprah (MADtv sketch) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced trivia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Uncited fancruft and original research. No evidence of notability. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:04, 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 00:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research and fancruft for a sketch which has progressively become worse and unwatchable over the years. Nate • (chatter) 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there might be something to be said for including this in the Oprah article under media portrayals or something, but without reliable sourcing we can't even have that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 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. The fact that the song was dedicated to Keith Relf has been merged to Birdland (album). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Original Man (A Song for Keith)[edit]

An Original Man (A Song for Keith) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Stub with no chance at being a full article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 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 00:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Redirect - It's a song with notability on several grounds, but not enough for it's own article. It would be nice to know why it was dedicated to whom it was, but even that would not be enough to merit it's own article. Proxy User (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. TheClashFan (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails notability WP:NSONGS. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:35, 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 redirect to Solidification / Stabilization (S/S) with Cement. MBisanz talk 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solidification and Stabilization[edit]

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

Article designed to look legit but serves only to promote a brand name product (ImmoCem). Another established article already exists for the main topic Solidification / Stabilization (S/S) with Cement. Links within the proposed afd go to the company website. Another article was created titled ImmoCem which directed users to Solidification and Stabilization. Both articles created and modified by same editor. Taroaldo (talk) 20:58, 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 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and rename per Whpq. twirligigT tothe C 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A landmark is notable enough for inclusion, although this needs to be made more specific and clear on the article page seicer | talk | contribs 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Casimir's Church and Parish, Yonkers, NY[edit]

St. Casimir's Church and Parish, Yonkers, NY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing to distinguish this parish among the thousands of other churches or other religious houses worldwide. Fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It's a century-old church that's been described as a neighborhood landmark. I don't have time to research now, so I can't judge its notability yet. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is every "neighborhood landmark" notable? Some would contend that not every neighborhood is, much less its landmarks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree that not every neighborhood landmark is not notable, haven't determined the status of this one -- could be puffery, could be a significant landmark. Looks like it was pretty active around the 1940s, judging from a quick glance at the news results. Just wanted to establish a starting point for others. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the one article listed above is not sufficient. I checked the National Register of Historic places database for NY, Yonkers [76], and found many historic registered buildings but this church is not one of them. -- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The church's rectory, the John Copcutt Mansion at 239 Nepperhan Ave., is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This article says the mansion is historically and architecturally significant to the city of Yonkers. I'm not sure if the notability transfers to the church, though. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amended to Keep based on the rectory being an historic building. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this is deletionism gone mad. Ottre 10:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Vague references to something being "historic" are meaningless. If the rectory is notable, we should have an article on it. I gather this is what the registry lists as "Copcutt,John,Mansion" ? if so, the reason for it being on the registry has no connection with the church .[77]. Glad of an opportunity to maintain my status among the rabid deletionists. DGG (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article needs to be updated to include mention of its rectory as being on the National Register of Historic Places, which would offer justification for its preservation here. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:27, 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet Master: Axis of Evil[edit]

Puppet Master: Axis of Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no proof that this film exists or will exist. I went to the official site of Full Moon Features, the listed production company, and found nothing. There is no entry on Allmovie or IMDb either. A Google search turned up mostly forums, one of which used Wikipedia as a source for this film. If there were something, I would leave it alone, but so far there is nothing even remotely like concrete to suggest this film's existence. LA (T) @ 19:05, 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 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. twirligigT tothe C 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC):C[reply]
  • Speedy Rapid Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HOAX. Junk Police (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flirt (album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, all speculation, it isn't known when or even if this will ever be released. Ejfetters (talk) 11:44, 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 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources check out, notable album Jamestilley (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has news coverage, has reviews, has notable producers and collaborators, and even has singles (one of which was a substantial hit). Even if this ultimately goes unreleased, it's still notable as a lost album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be deleted just as Her Name is Nicole was, argument is the same. That also had singles. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 07:35, 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Artist[edit]

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

Non-notable, could not find reliable sources aside from two semi-reliable entries: 1 and 2 tedder (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. As a frequent editor among the Latter Day Saint articles, I agree that to the extent of my knowledge, the magazine is non-notable. Even within Latter Day Saint-oriented sources, there is scarcely a mention of it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 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 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Good Olfactory. twirligigT tothe C 01:40, 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodoxy Beyond Limits[edit]

Orthodoxy Beyond Limits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

delete nn website V2e0 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam -- Whpq (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sincere spam, but spam indeed -- 7triton7 (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn website per WP:WEB. tedder (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Drdisque (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable subject. Hopefully the website will get coverage in Orthodox or other media and article can be recreated in the future. --Boston (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this is not a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Cape Welding[edit]

All Cape Welding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

delete nn company V2e0 (talk) 17:44, 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 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable.
  • Delete nn -Drdisque (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as one mention in regional newspaper does not establish notability. --Boston (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--273 words doesn't quite cut it. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 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 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteCrane[edit]

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

Originally prod'd for not being notable or having any third party reliable sources. prod removed because Other stuff exists. 16x9 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 16x9 (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - As the remover of the PROD, I noted in my summary "I don't see what makes this one less notable", which was a quick test in my mind as to notability. Obviously, this isn't the absolute, or even an indicative test, but it made me want some discussion around the deletion, if only to highlight other candidates for deletion. I do not feel particularly strongly either way, so have remained neural. Ian¹³/t 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of CMS articles were recently nominated and at least a couple got deleted for lacking any sources whatsoever (with non found) I did find this but that won't help at all with writing a balanced neutral article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Ripoff report is unlikely to represent any sort of balanced reporting. I really can't find anything else about this CMS. -- 01:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability and WP:OTHERSTUFF -> WP:INN. tedder (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there any evidence as to how widely used this software package is? -Drdisque (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable subject. Even a speedy might be appropriate as there is not even a claim to notability here. --Boston (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, though unfortunately software can't be speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 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 Spotify. MBisanz talk 08:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despotify[edit]

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

Fails to demonstrate notability through the inclusion of multiple non-trivial references by independent reliable sources. Has received the odd reference from Web media, mostly Swedish, but that's all; the project is only a few months old. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd say it passes the notability test, but it lacks reliable sources at present. However, it seems to be fairly new, and I'd say within a couple months time, there will be more to go off of. Matt (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be notable, but reliable sources are still crucial. Without them, an article cannot be maintained. (As for the might be notable in the future argument, that is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. We don't deal in speculation unless it's done by noted experts and even then not all the time. - Mgm|(talk) 10:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Completely un-notable aside from a way Linux users can run Spotify. Just because someone has hacked the source code of a program does not mean we should have an article on that hack. Unless it becomes something huge, or the Spotify article becomes too big, it makes sense to keep it within the Spotify article where it started. Jellypuzzle | Talk 08:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thay did not hack the sorce the despotify team revers engineered the protocol that spotify uses
and made their own program that uses the spotify protocol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.152.146 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spotify or Delete - redundant, unsourced information - in order to understand this article, you need to first read the spotify article -TinGrin 02:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Jellypuzzle and TinGrin. twirligigT tothe C 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep, IF Spotify is notable, then my vote is "merge" or "keep" SF007 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. I fully acknowledge that this organisation is notable but all the substantive content is a copyright violation from the two sources specified. Simply, we cannot tolerate copyright violations and there is no clean version to revert to. There is no problem in creating a new page without the copyright issues. TerriersFan (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Telecommunications Council[edit]

Pacific Telecommunications Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Moving from db-spam speedy deletion queue to AfD. db-inc not appropriate since it's not exactly a business or corporation (or person or website). Tone is a little brochure-like, but not terrible, and creator has offered to make it more neutral. $2.8M budget, founded in 1980. Needs sources. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, weakly, if promised edits are made. Google news archives yield a number of independent sources amid routine press releases about hirings, layoffs, and speakers at conferences. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even more telling than the Google News results are the 491 Google Books and 563 Google Scholar hits that demonstrate how much this organisation's proceedings are considered important in its field. And I don't qualify my "keep" with "if promised edits are made". Notability is clear, so there is no deadline as to when the article should be improved, and, as we are all volunteers, the onus is on those who want changes in the article to make them. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio. The first half of the article is copied from here and the second half from here. Smile a While (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It needs work, but might only take 10 or 15 minutes to rewrite to be more coherent and remove any "copyright violation" issues. Proxy User (talk) 05:20, 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 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Gau[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub. Appears to fail WP:BIO due to lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. There is an IMDB page but the roles mentioned in the article are not there which suggests they are not notable enough. —Snigbrook 14:19, 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, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor roles only Jamestilley (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN "executive producer" of a series of minor TV specials. The New York Times listing is not a full article. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James A. King, Jr.[edit]

James A. King, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not particularly notable USAFR officer. Not particularly senior (a colonel). One of thousands of officers of that rank serving in the US military. Recipient of an apparently obscure award from a body which doesn't even have its own WP article. Nothing makes him stand out. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 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, 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 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scatter Brothers Productions[edit]

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

The only possible point of notability is that this group of producers (which became the company listed), supposedly submitted a film to the Film Your Issue film contest and won (which means it's also shown at Sundance). I tried to verify the claim myself and can't (see these links:[78][79]). I also looked for evidence that the short played at Sundance and can only find self published statements that verify that claim (see these links:[80][81]). If it is true, I could see the President (Ben Daniele) being notable possibly but not a production company started after the face. As for the general notability litmus test, I found no news articles about the company as you can see here. I don't see that this company satisfies WP:CORP or that the group members would collectively meet WP:CREATIVE. They may be notable in the future but just not now.OlYellerTalktome 12:38, 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 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per nom. Maybe someday for these guys, but that day is not today. Keep workin' on it, and come back later. Proxy User (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP in a big way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Figures[edit]

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

Sufficient mention of these products is made at World Wrestling Entertainment. Doesn't merit a separate page. Taroaldo (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect While this should definitely mentioned in context, the coverage in the main article is not sufficient as claimed by the nominator. The separate article mentions additional information like years and other companies that had or will have the contract to produce these figures. Deleting the page would result in loss of information. - Mgm|(talk) 11:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, what? The figure line that put JAKKS Pacific on the map? The toy line that was the subject of an infamous lawsuit about how JAKKS Pacific acquired the rights and collusion between WWE licensors? One of the most successful boys toys lines in the last decade? Strong keep. This subject has featured article potential. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources with potential: this, this, this, this if we're calling Motley Fool a reliable source, and any of the toy industry journals (which I only ever had access to by nosing my employer's collection in a former job). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:15, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to new #Merchandise section of World Wrestling Entertainment. -Drdisque (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable toy line which even had a notable technological innovation (though it isn't mentioned in the article) by using 3D body scans of the wrestlers themselves to produce extremely accurate likenesses. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind with a hope that the article will undergo a major expansion and revision. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transfers for Torneo Apertura Chileno 2007[edit]

List of Transfers for Torneo Apertura Chileno 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems like a rather clear-cut WP:NOTDIR violation. Biruitorul Talk 03:26, 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 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as KOTNE correctly points out, league transfer articles are considered acceptable, and therefore the article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 01:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KOTNE and GS. – PeeJay 02:13, 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 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Library and Information History Group[edit]

Library and Information History Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence whatsoever of the notability of this group. Claims, yes. Evidence, no. StarM 01:35, 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, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam, complete with instructions on how to join their maiing list (!!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 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 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Societa Italiana di Benevolenza Principe di Piemonte[edit]

Societa Italiana di Benevolenza Principe di Piemonte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy A7 was declined on the basis of one source provided, but the declining admin implicitly expressed doubts that this article would survive an AfD. This is about an organization that represents ethnic Italians in a neighborhood of Thunder Bay, Ontario. There is no assertion of notability in the article except for the vague mention in one source. Google returns only ten hits, none of which are useable as a reference to establish notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag for reference improvements. This Google Book search seems to point the way to some sources that could be used to establish notability of the organisation. The full text is not available online. -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2009

(UTC)

This or The DaVinci Centre should be included. This facility is a long standing cultural organization in the city of Thunder Bay, similar to The Hoito.

Its a community cultural facility, run by volunteers, not a business per se...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:36, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable small organization. -Drdisque (talk) 02:32, 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 08:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Ballot Access[edit]

National Ballot Access (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very little real content, with almost all of its links linking to Ballotpedia. Many 'references' but almost none of them actually reference the named company. (I didn't check them all). The only user to have added any content is User:Johnwynnejr, who has zero other contributions. The company also only gets 1390 Google hits. The president and co-president links used to be wikilinks to articles that were speedied. Evan ¤ Seeds 05:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added more paragraph type content. I've delete the ballotpedia tags. This is my fist time on Wikipedia. I have many more articles to add relating to the citizens' initiative process, although unrelated to National Ballot Access. Alot of the references don't include National Ballot Access because I just wanted this page to be well referenced. I included lots of references about the petition drives, even if they did not mention the petition drive management company. Please let me keep this page. I can improve it to meet the standards.
User:Johnwynnejr 09:00am, 6 March 2009
  • Speedy delete G11 - user can start again if they like  Chzz  ►  15:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not so sure about advertising. For example, as it stands now, out of the 3 references for the president and co-president (an odd titling choice, I would expect pres and vice or two co-pres, but...) two of them paint NBA in a negative light. However, while the article itself certainly needs clean-up, what I'm really concerned about is notability. The article as far as I can tell does not really assert any claim of notability, as being a 'petition drive management company' is certainly not inherently notable. I know numbers aren't everything, but it gets 0 google news hit, and 76 google blog search hits, many of which are generic terms (Bob Foobar, national ballot access coordinator for Minor McCandidate's campaign), etc. --Evan ¤ Seeds 16:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put those references together on a whim. All I need is some more time to find more references that show notability. 7:00pm 6 March 2009 User:Johnwynnejr
  • I also added 3 external resources to add notability. Johnwynnejr (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just deleted and added new references for Colorado CRI, the Nebraska CRI and the Andy Dillon recall. The 2 new references for each show notability for National Ballot Access.Johnwynnejr (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just new and have much more to add.Johnwynnejr (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is me. I never hide my identity. Also, I have added more negative references and external resources for NBA than positive. I am going along with Wikipedia's aim for a neutral article. Thank you--Johnwynnejr (talk) 04:04, 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 00:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnwynnejr (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a lot of real content with more meat to the petition categories. Johnwynnejr (talk) 06:22, 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 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is difficult to see what the relationship is between the lede and the rest of the article. As for the sources, 2 does not have the subject named in it, 3 has two passing mentions, 4 does but it's just a blog, 6 has nothing, 7 is what?, 8 nothing... That's enough for me. The references do not help establish that the subject is notable, and the article doesn't even establish what it is. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice well taken:
    • All references now contain info regaurding National Ballot Access, except references #6,7,8.
    • The opening paragraph explains the importance and responsibilities of a petition drive management company.

ThanksJohnwynnejr (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please list 3 or more references in National Ballot Access, which are neutral, reliable sources that are independent of the subject and are exclusively about this company. Press releases or one-sentence mentions do not suffice. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added 3 external resources to the actual page already. They are more of resources though. Arno Political Consultants is another petition drive management company in the same boat. I guarantee any references they have are not neutral.

Johnwynnejr (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Can't say I have a strong feeling that it's an advert (though that seems like the only real possible purpose of wanting the Wiki page - Wiki page = higher Google Page Rank), but I can't see the notability of it either. Proxy User (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drmies, and evaluation of the claimed sources in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another company I work for from time to time(Arno Political Consultants) has their own page. No one puhed to delete that. Even the owner (Mike Arno) has his own page. That is no more notable that NBA. Johnwynnejr (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That Arno article is short and needs an overhaul, but it's not bad--at the very least it has four apparently independent sources that establish that the company is notable. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article is so full of puffery that it is difficult to distinguish between which sources are relevant and which are not. Of the 14 sources, in the article 12 are either behind a paywall, contain only passing mentions of this company, or don't even mention it at all. This news source from the Daily Nebraskan contains significant coverage about this company, while this source from Progressive States Network has a paragraph about this company. This source contains some information about some concerns with National Ballot Access. IMO, these sources are enough for National Ballot Access to barely pass WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I am working off the research of Cunard here, but I don't think these references are enough for a keep. There may be RS that have mentioned the topic, but that doesn't make it notable by itself. The mention in the WP:RS has to provide enough evidence that the topic is notable, and I'm not sure it does that. While the Daily Nebraskan article may have substantial coverage, that's not enough for a keep because it doesn't demonstrate its notability, only that it has been mentioned. The RS guideline, of course, works in conjunction with WP:notability. Shadowjams (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Come on guys, what do you say we let it ride..Johnwynnejr (talk) 03:41, 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. MBisanz talk 23:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celestine Kapsner[edit]

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

Delete not notable, poorly written, one self published reference Nefariousski (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is a notable figure and this information is of interest for people who are students of the topic. Dwain (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What information? There are a few sentances that more or less only discuss that he published a pamphlet and said pamphlet is the only source for the article. Where's the value added or notability? If he's a notable figure let's see more than a single credible source on the page. I can pull more and better sources for a Wikipedia article about myself just by doing a simple google search and by no measure do I qualify to have my own article. One pamphlet sourced from one webpage does not a good article make. --Nefariousski (talk) 06:13, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. He is not notable - searching ProQuest and Ebsco turned up zero articles for this person. Poorly written is not criteria for deletion. twirligigT tothe C 01:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might point out there are very few mentions of exorcism in the current edition of the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. Just because nobody is interested in the field these days, does not make him any less notable during the 1970s. Ottre 09:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, there's a letter to the editors of TIME magazine, Google Books has some hits (skip past the first page), he's mentioned in a book on St. John's Abbey, he gets mentioned in a footnote in a book on Erasmus (though only as translator) and likewise in a creepy book. OK, I've searched every single database I have access to and come up empty-handed. Maybe someone else will have more luck--I'm going to postpone the inevitable for now. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Time Magazine information. The article is very interesting Dwain (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like many Wiki articles, needs a lot of work. BUT, Kapsner is indeed a noted exorcist. Proxy User (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I don't see what the problem is. He is responsible for bringing exorcism to a wider audience with his publication. The next big story that reached a wide audience was the one that inspired the movie The Exorcist. It's an obvious keep. Puca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Very weak delete The Google Books refs above don't show much except that he translated that pamphlet. What else did he do that would show notability? OTOH, if the translation was more influential than the original, that would tend to show notability here... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Health Freedom[edit]

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

There are ample mentions of this institute in reliable sources in addition to those listed, but they seem all to treat it in context of the notability of Sue Blevins, its founder. I did find a few mentions with more context and direct relation considering the institute itself, but only in self-published or unreliable (World Net Daily, Medical News Today) sources that cannot be used to establish notability. As it lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, this organization does not seem notable. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only began that article less than a month ago, on 8th February. Is it reasonable to nominate an article for deletion before its author even gets a chance to develop it properly? Also, I note that your proposed grounds for deletion do not cite any specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines to support your reasoning. More to the point, all of the article's references easily meet the bar for WP:RS. As such, I contend that your claimed grounds for deletion are spurious and one-sided at best. It would be a sad day if all Wikipedia articles with references like these are to be deleted before they even get a chance to get off the ground.Vitaminman (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are better sources (i.e. deal with the institute itself more than in passing) than the ones I found and describe above, please add them. Alternatively, there is nothing wrong with working on an article in your userspace (e.g. at User:Vitaminman/draft) until you are ready to take it live. The relevant guideline, which I link above, is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). - Eldereft (cont.) 22:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what to make of this, to be frank.
Sue Blevins needs an article, if she's notable (which the nominator agrees she is). In which case, Institute for Health Freedom should either have an article of its own if it's notable in its own right, or else it should redirect to Sue Blevins if it isn't. The Sue Blevins article could quite appropriately have a section on the Institute for Health Freedom.
So overall I'm going to go with Redirect.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be hundreds of news sources and books which mention this lobby group in some way. Sue Blevins seems to be their principal speaker and so the two tend to appear together but with the Institute predominating. BLP concerns should make us prefer an article upon the organisation rather than the person. And, in any case, it's just a matter of getting the right title, which is not achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 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 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I can quite see the issue over the interlinking between the Institute and Blevins. However, reading the sources, it is the body behind it, not the spokesperson, that gives the views of the Institute significance. It seems clear to me that the Institutes' views carry weight as shown by the broad range of RSs that quote it. Smile a While (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zillions of mentions don't necessarily equate to notability. Any active "think tank" will have lots of position papers out there. But are any of them notable for any particular reason? I don't think so. Proxy User (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sue Blevins: this organization hasn't made the headlines at all this year. Ottre 08:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge as above, else delete. I'm seeing mentions, I'm not seeing anything in-depth that one could use to build an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; as per my comments above. Vitaminman (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; (obvious) easily meets the threshold for inclusion in the category of advocacy groups. Their non-profit budget is significant http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1365 patsw (talk) 18:56, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 03:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Creek, Houston / Humble[edit]

Fall Creek, Houston / Humble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't even exist yet. Maniamin (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not existing yet is in itself not a problem if the planning is well covered. But there are no independent sources to be had. - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No third party sources (the only source is the website of this planned community, which makes me think it's spammy), no indications of notability. TJ Spyke 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn proposed real estate development -Drdisque (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of independent sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 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 08:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rola[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. An independent film maker with non notable films. I don't come up with any news coverage for him and his films, and the only source on the page seems to be a webpage created by the person. Also, the independent film festival that his films are showed at has a reputation for accepting every entry that is submitted. There are no mentions of the movies elsewhere. FingersOnRoids 23:14, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. One film, and no evidence of either commercial success or critical recognition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_16&oldid=1142644196"