Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 20 March 22 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. MBisanz talk 06:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn P. Wilbur[edit]

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

A lot of fluff, but no substance. The individual does not appear to be even marginally notable. While someone might have cited something he said somewhere, no articles have been written about him. WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Your honor (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subject has made no edits to the article, and has only posted to the talkpage to correct the date of birth. The rest of your points I refute below. Regards, Skomorokh 09:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from creator The reason I wrote this article is because the subject is mentioned in several distinct and unrelated articles, and there was a clear need to provide context to our readers. His work is frequently cited in scholarly literature; the vast majority of which is not yet integrated into the article. Beyond this, he has been the subject multiple instances of non-trivial coverage as cited, which in case anyone has forgotten is the primary standard for inclusion. The nomination seems to confuse the concept of notability with that of importance, when what it is really concerned with is verifiability. It is critically important for Wikipedia to be transparent in identifying its sources, and providing well-referenced articles on the scholars and work frequently used in writing the encyclopaedia is a crucial and neglected part of this. The article itself is neutral, verifiable and does not engage in original research, and can be much further expanded from the available reliable sources. I cannot believe that deleting it is in the interest of the encyclopaedia or its readership. Skomorokh 09:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO . It says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." It doesn't matter how many writings you can find where someone has cited something he wrote. That doesn't make HIM notable. You would have to find writings ABOUT HIM, for HIM to be notable. Your honor (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • BIO is a sufficient, not necessary criterion for notability, supplanted like all guidelines by the WP:5P. Why would the encyclopaedia be improved by the deletion of this article? Skomorokh 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would be improved by not throwing people off track to read about this insignificant individual, thinking he might be someone important to read about when in reality he's just your average guy that hasn't done anything more notable or impacting on the world than half the population. If you include people like this there is no stopping what people articles would be written about. Might as well go through the phone book and start adding people. It's a basic rule for Wikipedia that the subject of articles have to be notable. In short, it's not encyclopedic. I came across this article just browsing through anarchists, and was taken aback by how silly this article was. It makes Wikipedia seem foolish, and not be taken seriously. It's not encyclopedic. Your honor (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —94.196.22.232 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —94.196.22.232 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from translator: I translate article to spanish because almost de same reason, his work is cited in many schoolar works about American History of political ideas. Thanks. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I'm not convinced notability has been demonstrated, per WP:BIO and WP:PROF; though he seems to be marginally notable, so perhaps it could be. If sufficient evidence can be provided that this person has been the subject of significant coverage from multiple independent sources, I will change my position. Robofish (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete contra Skomorokh's claim that "His work is frequently cited in scholarly literature" the Google scholar link he provides demonstrates an h-index of 3, which really isn't all that impressive. His most cited publication is an essay posted to geocities, and I'm not inclined to treat GS "citation" counts of geocites essays at par with citation counts from something like WoK. Fails WP:PROF & WP:BIO. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Pete Hurd, even if we would take the Google Scholar counts at face value, one paper with 123 cites (and a few others with barely any cites at all) does not make the cut for me. --Crusio (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - marginal non-notable bio; reluctantly (I suspect I'd like this guy if we met, and we've got some interests in common), but he just doesn't make the cut of notability, either as an academic or under any other category. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:BIO, WP:PROF, Robofish. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure we should be judging him as an academic strictly, since his claim to notability is as blogger and cultural critic rather than as a former college instructor. Either way, I am not convinced of his notability. Jvr725 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no established notability based on reliable third-party sources. The guy ran a bookstore and has self-published papers. That's not enough. --John Nagle (talk) 04:41, 27 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 06:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taoism and death[edit]

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

This article is part of the same dubious "school project" that is currently the subject of two other afds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and science and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and civil rights. The tutor or mentor of the project has determinedly resisted all attempts to help and insists on posting this mediocre, unencyclopedic rubbish. It's poorly written, POV, badly referenced original research. Fails WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:VER. andy (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as entirely non-NPOV and seems to be entirely synthesis original research based off of one source. There is a merge template there, but no discussion whatsoever has started. However, I seriously doubt the current material could be merged into Taoism, especially when it's not NPOV. MuZemike 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. I didn't know what I was thinking, there. MuZemike 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more of the same school project that brought us Hinduism and science, and with all the same problems. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly written, simplistic, POV essay based largely on material from a single source. It is not even clear what exact book is being used as a reference, since the citation "Wong,Taoism,Shambahala publications" is incomplete besides misspelling the publisher's name. The publisher's website lists no book by that exact name, and the writings seem to be generic devotee literature. Again, it may be possible to write an encyclopedic article on this topic, but this start is not helpful at all, and misleads the readers. Abecedare (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Aleta Sing 04:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV article which doesn't include much in the way of sources. Verges on the OR at times. Is this a snowball candidate? --Deadly∀ssassin 05:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge There seems to be a merge proposal for this which is a more sensible approach than this AFD. The material has a source and so is better than many/most new articles. It should be preserved in accordance with our editing policy. Note by the way, that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and so this includes school projects. Prejudice against the article on this ground is improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the possibility of a merge but I couldn't see anything in this mediocre article that was suitable for merging. Nobody is prejudiced against it because it's a school project - quite the contrary. You should read the many comments and offers of assistance on User talk:Vote Cthulhu and the talk pages of the various articles that form part of this "project".
Frankly, Vote Cthulhu has set up an ill thought out project which he doesn't have the knowledge to teach adequately (he is unaware of many WP basics such as the use of a sandbox), has allowed students to write poor quality articles that trample all over many WP policies and conventions including copyright, verifiability and neutrality, and he has refused flatly to do anything to correct the problems he seems to have created. Goodness knows what the students have learned from this mess - I don't.
Meanwhile this is an encyclopedia, not a playground. andy (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see any particular POV issue here. Citations need to be cleaned up, and the article can certainly be expanded. No use merging since very little is written on this precise subject elsewhere. andy certainly does exhibit a prejudice here; other users will note in his history that he has been relentlessly trying to delete, redirect, and otherwise harass all articles associated with me recently. Note that andy uses the "fact" that other articles related to this one are under consideration for deletion, but other users must realise that these have all been placed under such consideration by andy himself.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE As Wikipedia policy states, "Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement." So, why not move to actually improve this article rather than simply trying to delete it almost immediately after its creation?Vote Cthulhu (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually that's not policy, just the philosophy of the Rescue Squadron. And there's rather more to it than that, anyway. Please take some advice: before embarking on any school projects in the future do familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies. As I've previously mentioned, WP:SUP is a great place to start. andy (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument seems to boil down to: "I don't like this guy's school project, so let's get rid of it all." Poor argument. Show me the POV being argued here. Vote Cthulhu (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant policies include: Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO it can't be fixed through normal editing, for the reasons outline in the nomination and endorsed by several editors, and I don't see any sign of anyone doing so. I've been able to fix one of this "project's" articles by gutting it and adding better quality material from elsewhere. If the same can be done to this article why doesn't someone do so? andy (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One reason may be the chilling effect of trying to delete the article. Another reason is the common misconception that article improvements are someone else's problem. A third reason is that we may be busy working upon other articles. But I shall take a look now as I am not so easily discouraged. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a paragraph from two good sources. It is slow going because Taoism is a complex religion which compounds numerous ideas. I have no special expertise in this subject but can already tell that it is a substantial topic for which there are numerous sources, as you would expect for a major religion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a subject that is suitable for an encyclopedia; the teachings of a major religion about death are clearly notable and important. I see no reason any problem here cannot be fixed by editing, therefore WP:DELETION and WP:EP both require us to improve this content, rather than delete it. JulesH (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that this article actually covers "the teachings of a major religion about death"? It's been written by students who do not seem to know anything about the subject and who do not seem to have been properly supervised. The issues are about the fundamental reliability of the article - frankly, pretty much anything in it could be completely untrue and no non-Taoist editor would have a clue. Do you know how to edit it to fix these unknown problems? I certainly don't. For example, please see the recent intervention by Mitsube in a related AfD here. andy (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are ignorant of the topic, why are you so confident that its authors know nothing about it? Please familiarise yourself with our guidelines, WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need for you to bite me, either. If you read the nomination you'll see that the issues are to do with verifiability, clear POV and obvious OR. If you trouble yourself to read the various comments here and on the related AfDs you'll see that there's been plenty of good faith by myself and other editors but precious little by the people who have been running this "project" and who seem not to care about such things as copyright and verifiability. As it happens I have a masters degree in Philosophy and have even read (with enjoyment) Tao Te Ching. I know quite a lot about the subject which is why I nominated it but I'm not a Taoist, can't spot all the problems and don't have the arrogance to assume I could do a proper job of fixing them. But even if I knew nothing of Taoism I hope I could spot the obvious and (IMHO) fatal flaws in an article such as this one. So please, try assuming good faith yourself and try to be civil next time you come across someone who disagrees with you! andy (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(And I have a PhD in Religious Studies and have read the Tao Te Ching, in addition to the Chuang Tzu, several times. Since my credentials trump yours, does this mean you give up now?)Vote Cthulhu (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous comments indicated that you knew nothing of the topic but I now understand that you are just too modest - an honest misunderstanding for which I apologise. Please note that advanced knowledge of topics is not required to edit our articles as this is the encyclopedia which anyone may edit. This is my essential point, that you seem hostile to editing by the authors of this and other articles and this is quite contrary to our guideline of WP:BITE. All are welcome here and it is our explicit policy that we should nuture contributors and contributions rather than suppressing them. The expected action in such cases is that knowledgeable editors such as yourself will assist the development of such articles. I have made my own modest contribution - it is not so hard. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I see someone making an error I offer to help. If they push my hand away I don't waste any further effort on them. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground for egos. I'm old fashioned that way, and I have no time for fools. andy (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I suggest yo take your own advice here and apply it to yourself. You have no time for fools at the same time as you acknowledge ignorance in a subject that you claim to see fatal flaws. Further, you claim that you have not bitten the newbies, when you offered nothing but Afds and senseless redirects. You didn't offer an help at all. Instead, you've claimed that these articles are beyond help and moved to have them deleted even before they were finished. Quite frankly, your crusade here is ridiculous.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of the article is fine, and the article itself has references, and seems credible enough. If you doubt any of the statements made, then tag it with a citation needed, and discuss it on the article's talk page. Dream Focus 20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if you think that pretty much everything in the article can be called into doubt? You tag it with AFD, and here we are andy (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Original research, nothing of substance to salvage. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I simply MUST point out once again that this AfD has been sparked by andy, who has taken it upon himself to attack several articles that were related only by their having been part of a school project in which students created new articles on a variety of subjects. andy argues that all of these articles should be deleted because, and I quote, they've "been written by students who do not seem to know anything about the subject and who do not seem to have been properly supervised." This entire statement is a conjecture on his part which reveals an obvious bias against this and other articles. Colonel Warden rightly points out andy's ignorance and directs him to WP:BITE. Further, many comments above indicate an acknowledgment of the topic's value. That one editor who admits to an ignorance of the subject should not see any way to edit the article does not mean that nobody can. This article, and others under attack from the nom, should be kept in order for it to be edited and fixed as is the norm for Wikipedia.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Andy has not nominated all of the articles for deletion. At least one, Jewish clothing, he improved and did not try to get deleted. There are others I think he has not touched at all. Several others, while making the obvious connections between them of having been your students' projects, he has nominated and they are being decided individually whether they should be kept or not (and the conclusions have not all been the same for those discussions that have been completed). Aleta Sing 17:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification Obviously, Andy has not nominated ALL articles for deletion. What I intended to say is that ALL of the articles to which he constantly refers were ALL nominated to AfD by him. My point here is that he seems to refer editors to the fact that this collection of essays have all been nominated for deletion, somehow indicated a collective weakness, while it is Andy himself who has nominated them all. I am pleased to see that the conclusion has not been to delete in each case, though I am disappointed that andy continues to rail against the existence of articles that have received a KEEP consensus, as with Christianity in Haiti.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All editors are reminded to remain WP:CIVIL and to focus on the article under consideration here. DMacks (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Civility Clarification If my use of the term "ignorant" was seen as uncivil, I apologise. I did not mean to suggest that anyone was necessarily ignorant about all matters, rather I refer to the acknowledgment above that the editor in question professes a certain degree of ignorance about a subject which he then goes on to suggest is unsalvageable. My point simply is that such an argument holds no logical weight.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously this article needs work, but the section on "Immortality" is reliable -- if uncited. (See Taoist alchemy for details; Holmes Welch, Taoism: the Parting of the Way contains far more details on Taoists seeking immortality.) I'd say a better approach would be to stubify -- chop off everything after the first paragraph, except a few sections from the "Immortality" section, & put a stub tag on it. (PS, let's discuss the article, not the editors here.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to go along with that although I suspect that the author isn't. That first paragraph is not part of the original article which is the subject of this AfD. Clearly Taoism has something to say about Death but this article doesn't say it. andy (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original author doesn't have any right of veto over rewriting this article. And I say that as someone who has had more than a few articles rewritten past recognition -- an act which resulted in at least two of them becoming FAs, FWIW. -- llywrch (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some of the content is salvageable and the topic is notable and deserving of its own article. Tag for cleanup, find sources, remove original research... but deletion is unwarranted. -kotra (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete - reads like a "compare and contrast" essay. If there's anything there worth rescuing, put it in Taoism. --John Nagle (talk) 04:44, 27 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 Seraphs (Battlestar Galactica). MBisanz talk 06:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ship of Lights[edit]

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

Plot summary for non-notable topic. First reference verifies plot, while second references discuss hypothetical "resurrection" or reference to ship that never happened; all references are in passing and fail to demonstrate significant third-party coverage to establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge somewhere — the anon's suggestion of a list of original series Battlestar Galactica spacecraft (on a parallel with the existing List of ships in Battlestar Galactica (2004) is a good one. The material from Cylon Basestar could also be split between these two articles. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with rewording. It becomes significant towards the end of the series. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any evidence of real-world significance outside the series? --EEMIV (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, you could ask that about half the stuff on here, especially regarding fiction. WP:NOTPAPER and all that. As I said, it needs work but should be kept. As it is, the title is not conflicting with anything, so what the heck. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, any aspect of a work of fiction which merits inclusion as a separate entry in Wikipedia should have some indication of real-world significance. But real-world significance need not be defined narrowly: if you see WP:FICT#Notability of elements within a fictional work you can see that commentary on the subject is one of the aspects which can help determine real-world significance. To that end, I had a brief look on Google Books, and found a reference to the Ship of Lights in a book about the history of Mormonism (since the original Battlestar Galactica was deeply influenced by Mormon theology). I also found a few references in the recent book Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: one essay talks about the Mormon connection, another points to the Beings of Light as evidence of the original BSG's Manichean world-view.
It's not too difficult to find sources like these, and this is the sort of material that Wikipedia articles about elements of fiction should contain. If a reliable source has taken the time to discuss a fictional detail, that detail is notable and deserves its own entry. If not, it's probably best condensed into an article about the work of fiction as a whole.
That said, these sources that I found are probably enough to justify the Ship of Lights and/or the Seraphs having their own page or pages. (Perhaps the two should be combined, but that's another question.) So I'm going to change my !vote. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article and Seraphs (Battlestar Galactica) (which should probably be named "Beings of Light", currently proposed for deletion) should be considered together. The notable mythology and story arc (three episodes and one written but not filmed before cancellation; tied in with Count Iblis, Starbuck and also finding Earth) was powerful beings and their ship: there's two components, the beings and the ship. Also, when people mention Ship of Lights (e.g. another interview with Moore that I added) they often actually mean that combined "Beings and Ship" concept, rather than just the spaceship, i.e. keep and merge with Seraphs (Battlestar Galactica) and rename to Beings of Light if either or both meet criteria 3 (preferred) or keep and merge with and Seraphs (Battlestar Galactica) into another relevant article if they don't satisfy criteria 3. Year Zero is a concept (talk)
I support the eventual merger of this and Seraphs (Battlestar Galactica) (from which I removed the prod). I've added the references I found to both of them, but the notability is really shared by both. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see any sign of notability. One of these references is in passing in a footnote, and fails to meet the requirement for substantial third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote is part of an extensive discussion of Battlestar Galactica and Mormonism, which is incidental to the book's subject (the history of Mormonism), but it's still fairly substantial. The references in Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy are also substantial, and clearly meet the criteria at WP:FICT#Sources and notability.
There's also the scholarly article "Battlestar Galactica and Mormonism", from the Journal of Popular Culture; I can't access the article itself, but there are references to it in Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy and this essay, which would strongly suggest that it deals extensively with the Ship of Lights and its inhabitants. If somebody who has access to an academic library wants to check this out and verify, I'd think that would certainly qualify as "substantial third-party coverage". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability as written. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislav Prokop[edit]

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

Seems to be a violin manufactorer? Its a short stub that is lacking verifiability. That do you think? Link to google search: [1] The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Speedy delete I think the violin manufacturer is a different person altogether. FlyingToaster 22:49, 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 delete. Complete WP:BOLLOCKS, no need to waste people's time on this. Speedy deleted as a hoax (yes yes, I know it's not a speedy criteria, but it should be.) Black Kite 21:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Pottera[edit]

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

Complete fabrication from start to finish. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mathews (Politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. I've deleted this article once before as blatant advertising, but thought I would bring it here for further review. Article does not cite any reliable sources and I cannot find any for this write-in candidate. TNXMan 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as spam. The text has clearly been pasted from his election material (which is the sole reference). The guy will be notable, if he wins, but just being a candidate is not enough to make it worth keeping and rewriting. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on! I just noticed the date on this. The election was in 2006. Why is he still campaigning? Has he got a time machine? Its still spam though. On the plus side, it is nice to see a politician with his hand in his own pocket. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the article was created 21 March 2009 by an SPA. It's clear that the article is not a 2006 remnant. The guy presumably is planning to run again. Regardless, still fails WP:POLITICIAN. AngoraFish 木 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and Salt per above. Tavix (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttle Peter Mathews in the last election won 17% of the 34th district (according to the Secretary of State, California) as a write in a ballot in the 2008 elections making him a contender against incumbent Laura Richardson. Before that in 1996 he lost the election by only 6 points. Peter Mathews is currently ON THE BALLOT for the 2010 Congressional Elections making him a leading contender against incumbent Laura Richardson. Peter Mathews was the leading organizer and founder of an organization which protested the rising tuitions in California Community Colleges in the early 90s.If you also go to the youtube channel Power4People, Mathews has been interviewed a myriad of occasions by NBC news.

He doesn't have a time machine but it's worth mentioning that there is no harm in rerunning for a Congressional seat Daniel. Abe Lincoln lost several House elections before he was elected, what Mathew's is doing is purely American. And yes it is nice to see a politician with his hand in his pocket.

Angora. He has met most of the requirements. He is a viable local candidate which won 17% of the popular vote in a rather large district in 2008 and lost by 6 points in a previous election in 1996. He has been interviewed by NBC as a political commentator. For the special 2008 edition of Esquire, Peter Mathews was nominated as a better candidate over incumbent Laura Richardson.

Granted, the page has some holes for now, due to it being started up but in due time we'll be able to incorporate more into the page. Within a few weeks, which like most wikipedia pages, will be sufficient time to get things going.

For more information hear are some links pertaining to what I have stated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti5Oe8Y66q4&feature=channel_page (2003 NBC Interview about the war) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W__G9FHElEc&feature=channel_page (2004? NBC Interview North Korea) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38V26JXVZJQ&feature=channel_page (2007 NBC Interview about the Election)

He has had plenty of Media exposure and if you were to check the California Sate Secretary website and look up the 37th districts results, you will find Peter Mathews.

Changes"" Request of Daniel, i have re-edited the page to incorporate more information. As for the biography I dont have much after that, since I'm a supporter of the campaign since he lives in my district. I'll try to see if I can write up more or ask others to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonjinsukchang (talk • contribs) 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Jasonjinsukchang (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonjinsukchang (talk • contribs) 21:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What district is he running in? The article states 37th, but you said 34th. Pburka (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment losing candidates in a nominating primary certainly don't even warrant a Wikipedia article, indeed, unsuccessful candidates in the full election don't warrant an article either. Whether or not he is on the ballot for 2010 is irrelevant. Novelty interviews, endorsements. etc are all part of election-related dross and not sufficient to comply with Wikipedia's core policy on notability. If he actually wins a seat in the 2010 election any editor will be more than welcome to recreate the article then. AngoraFish 木 22:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


""Reponse to AngoraFish""

The wikipedia guidelines say nothing that he has to win, he just has to have a sufficient backing within the community, and his recent numbers show that he does have a decent backing. If you actually see the NBC interviews, all but one have nothing pertaining to his election. Instead they are discussing foreign affairs or the Bush doctrine. Peter Mathews is a political figure as well as a NBC regular guest political commentator which makes him a viable contender for Wikipedia.--Jasonjinsukchang (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable person, pure spam andy (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. Salt Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Response" Petter Mathews is a notable person. If he's been on television multiple occasions as a political commentator, been endorsed by magazines such as Esquire, gained a large following, he is by definition a notable person. Not to you or to a majority of America, but to the 37th district of California and Southern California. Not too sure why most of you guys are still refuting this fact and accepting other pages that dont even have even as close of a following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonjinsukchang (talk • contribs) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." You've not provided such references. And even if you had the article is clearly intended to be promotional. andy (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unelected and generally not notable, though I would reconsider if significant coverage in reliable sources (especially outside the area) was found. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN being only a candidate, with no other significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a place for free advertising, and there are massive conflict of interest and neutrality problems here. – Toon(talk) 15:36, 23 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. Valley2city‽ 02:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T9 Repper[edit]

T9 Repper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google doesn't turn up any results for either "T9 Repper" or "Tor Romeo the 9th". Article has no sources given. Article claims winning of "MTV awards", but unable to find any reference to T9 Repper on MTV's website. Radiant chains (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. If he really had won MTV awards or appeared in notable movies then it would be trivially easy to find coverage proving this. Google has nothing to corroborate this nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. I looked for references earlier just to see if this person even existed and I couldn't find anything. I would suspect that it would be relatively easy to find information on a person who had won the awards claimed in this article. Rnb (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I won't call it a hoax, but I agree that it's definitely non-notable. Matt (talk) 08:30, 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. Valley2city‽ 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters by IQ[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional characters by IQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Due to this article being kept at AfD about a year ago, I only have entered into this AfD only after extensive consideration of policy. I have however found it to be falling short of our inclusion criteria. I believe that the prior AfD did not lead to a delete because the nominators argument("Delete Listcruft") was not particularly cogent.

My reasons for thinking this article should be deleted is because I feel it constitutes original research as well as fails our notability, verifiability, and reliable sources criteria.

I would like to begin by pointing out that lists are indeed covered by the above policies. It is a somewhat common misconception that they are not.

Wikipedia:Lists

"Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others."

Wikipedia:Verifiability

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources."

Of the 47 references provided in the article:

  • 42 are primary sources that refer directly to episodes or promotional material from the creators of the episodes
  • 2 are blogs which are not considered reliable sources
  • 1 is off topic talking about the intelligence of super heroes without talking of specific heroes or IQ
  • 1 is a Wikipedia article which is of course not a reliable source
  • 1 is in fact a valid source on the subject of Sherlock Holmes' intelligence, unknown if it covers IQ specifically: Radford, John (1999). Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes: And Other Three-pipe Problems. Sigma Forlag, Norway. ISBN 8-2791-6004-3.

Of all the citations given only one is a reliable third party source on the subject of just one of the characters.

Wikipedia:No original research

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic."

Please note that it says "topic". A single reliable source on the intelligence of one fictional character is not a reliable source on the topic of the IQ of fictional people. While there is a book about the intelligence of Sherlock Holmes, there does not seem to be anyone out there that has written about the IQ of fictional characters in general. I have done some searching around and have only found copies of this Wikipedia article and a few forum posts where people are guessing the IQs of fictional characters.

Wikipedia is not the place to introduce a newly constructed subject, rather it is meant to reflect already existing and documented subjects. The former is original research, the latter is verifiable.

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

" Significant real-world information must exist on the element beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work"

"Merely listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, their respective release dates, and the names of the production staff is not sufficient "

"A topic about which there are no significant secondary sources cannot pass this guideline "

"the general notability guideline requires the use of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

Our notability guidelines seem to be very clear that simply citing what is revealed in a fictional work is not adequate to establish the notability of the topic. It is also clear that if a topic has no significant secondary sources then it cannot pass the guideline.

Conclusion

For the reasons given above I suggest this article be deleted as not being an encyclopedia topic. Chillum 19:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is a guideline which has failed 3 times to become a guideline. Many editors were concered that editors such as the nominator would use the policy to attempt to delete articles. They were right. Ikip (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that the list is an unencyclopaedic topic. It is sad to see so much honest effort made to compile and reference the list as if it was encyclopaedic, but it is to no avail. What does the list mean? As far as I can see it means nothing. Different authors pick different large numbers to tag their characters with in passing mentions to their intelligence (or otherwise). The list is of no use in comparing the intelligence of fictional characters. It might as well be a list of random numbers. Is there any evidence that the subject of the IQs ascribed to fictional characters has been researched externally to Wikipedia? I can't see any in the references. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To accept that this list is for real requires me to suspend all disbelief, and accept the premise that someone has been watching 40 or more different television programs, happening to catch whichever of the many episodes happens to discuss the character's IQ would be discussed, and to make a note of it during the moment that the information is mentioned. Doing this once means that you watch too much TV. Doing it multiple times means that people are going to think that the citations are bullshit. While I suppose someone could google this information, trying a name at random-- (as in "Steve Urkel" and "IQ" [2]) comes back to this page. Mandsford (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep I think this could be a reasonable topic, and while I understand the hesitance to accept primary sources, this is one of the relatively uncommon areas where a primary source would be acceptable or even preferred. I don't think the goal here is comparison, as it's generally accepted that the very idea of IQ is subjective and varies by testing method and other circumstances. But that doesn't invalidate the article as an information source. Needs pruning, perhaps, but not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what do you think of our no original research policy? It says "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic." It would lend much to your argument if you could address this point. Chillum 20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and that's a good reason not to have an article like IQ of Homer Simpson, but it doesn't necessarily prohibit the IQ of Homer Simpson (etc.) being addressed in another article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no problem mentioning it in individual articles or character summaries (although it could be seen as trivia) but as soon as they are collated into a list (a list sorted into numerical order) it invites comparison. Why else collate a list? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote to delete from keep. Having second thoughts on this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure listcruft. Absolutely unencyclopedic. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The nominator gets the award for the longest AfD nomination I have ever seen. Unfortunatly for the nomination, a brief look at the long nomination show that real policy arguments are lacking. Ikip (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Real policy arguments are lacking? I thought I made my policy based arguments clear. I will try harder next time. Chillum 15:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know if I can add to the exhaustive nomination except to say good job sorting all that out. ThemFromSpace 21:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a very useful list, who would want to browse characters by IQ? LetsdrinkTea 22:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per the excellent and very comprehensive nomination. This also fails WP:TRIVIA and WP:IINFO. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Placing these values all in a single list implies that they're all comparable to each other or to real people's IQs, which simply isn't the case - many of the numbers here were probably chosen by authors for humorous effect (for instance, the Alakazam Pokemon with an IQ of 5000, or Homer Simpson with his IQ of 55) or as a generically high value (like Sherlock Holmes's 190), rather than as a realistic measure of intelligence. As Starblind and DanielRigal mention above, this sort of information is okay on individual articles; the issue is simply with juxtaposing them like this. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination clearly fails WP:BEFORE in that the nominator seems to want more sources but only made this demand upon the article's talk page a few hours ago and fails to demonstrate that such sources cannot be found. I have made a brief search myself just now. This is not easy because the nature of the topic does not seem provide a good keyword but I have already found one good relevant source: Yardsticks: retarded characters and their roles in fiction. This demonstrates that the topic of intelligence (or lack of same) in fiction is notable and this article provides a reasonable start in addressing this topic. The article therefore just requires improvement in accordance with our editing policy and deletion will not assist this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article was nominated for deletion last year for the same basic concerns as the current nomination. You seem to be proposing an article on another topic; there's nothing stopping you from writing an article on IQ in fiction or similar. The synopsis of the book at Google books doesn't imply that it contains anything like the material needed to properly cite this article ("Puccinelli identifies the retarded character's role in narrative in terms of the following five categories: the yardstick (the most prevalent of the five), the wise fool, the catalyst, the window pane, and the accessory. Though this discussion is limited to American fiction, the analysis perseveres in other national literatures and in other media, including film and television.") Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I agree. The portrayal of people of unusually low or high intelligence in fiction is definitely a legitimate topic but is also a different topic from the article we are discussing here. It is unlikely that an article on that topic will focus much on IQ scores attributed to characters or that this article could provide a useful starting point for such an article. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your view is contrary to our editing policy. We do not require deletion to change the title of the article or amend its contents. And since the proposed reworking is based upon the current content, it would violate the WP:GFDL to remove credit from the previous authors who helped to get us to this point. AFDs are not for cleanup or article improvement drives. Per WP:BEFORE, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming that the new article would not use any of the current content because it would be a different subject and the current content would not be a useful starting point. Of course, if it was thought a useful starting point then I would agree that it should be handled as a continuation of this article. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for sources and improvement as per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, as giudeline instructs. No need to then violate guideline to make a point. Like DGG last APril, I suggest ignoring !votes like "listcruft" as meaningless equivalents of "I dont like the article but can't give a reason". And calling all 47 sources "primary sources", seems to assume others might not actually look and see such as Business Week, The DC Comics Encyclopedia, Flowers for Algernon Book Notes Summary by Daniel Keyes, "Chapter 107" ISBN 1-4215-0242-9, Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes: And Other Three-pipe Problems ISBN 8-2791-6004-3, Hulk: The Incredible Guide. ISBN 0-7566-4169-1. Huh? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The business week article dealt with the intelligence of superheroes, but did not deal in any way with IQ or any specific character. The DC comic encyclopedia is by the same people who make the comics and not an independent source. The Flowers for Algernon reference was an exert from the book. The incredible hulk was also by the same people who make the comic and not an independent source. The Sherlock Holmes reference I myself pointed out in my nomination. I assure you I gave the sources due consideration. Chillum 07:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per common sense. That's freakin' everybody! How much more indiscriminate can you possibly get? MuZemike 00:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not everybody. Perhaps you missed the introduction, "This list only intends to include fictional characters whose IQ score was explicitly revealed in the work of fiction.". This seems quite a narrow and discriminating citerion. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria "Their IQ was the subject of an independent reliable source" would be the criteria that we would prefer. It does not however seem that such sources exist for this article. Pouring through television episodes and books and documenting their contents for an article is original research. We need to base our content on reliable independent sources not through a novel synthesis of primary sources. A fine endeavor anywhere else but not appropriate for Wikipedia. Chillum 14:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nom already quite exhaustive and well argued. Not much to add but completely fails WP:N, WP:V, and its primarily WP:OR with in-universe "sourcing" that does not actually meet any requirement for "significant coverage from reliable, third party sources." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A distinctive characteristic of characters in fiction. If the characters are important,as shown either by having Wp articles of significant mentions in articles about the fiction, and the IQs are definitely stated in the fiction, then the material is a/ notable and b/verifiable. One might object if one thinks secondary sourcing is needed for the data,and that's simply wrong. Perhaps one might think Wp should cover fiction only minimally, but that is a prejudice, just like the prejudice against lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 March 2009
  • Delete. This is just a trivial and indiscriminate list that isn't notable for Wikipedia. Move to a fan wiki if possible, but it certainly doesn't belong here. What's next: List of fictional characters by age or height or weight? RobJ1981 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per the excellent nomination, particular OR and the failure of notability for fiction.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I really can't add much to the excellent nomination. Common sense says lists of unimportant trivia should be discouraged. Reyk YO! 07:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the most wonderful nomination. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to congratulate the authors for finding even a single independent reliable source for this topic. You might be able to find another one here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+%22forest+gump%22&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N Nerfari (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say the google result "Can instructions to nonverbal IQ tests be given in pantomime" looks very intriguing. Chillum 20:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course! This is a very unique list — in fact, I'll bet Wikipedia is the only site on the whole net that actually has a list of fictional characters by IQ! I wonder why don't make more of these trivial lists. Why don't we start? I've got a few in mind already: List of fictional characters by weight, List of fictional characters by blood type, List of fictional characters by SAT scores. The list goes on! Yes, were it not for Wikipedia supplying these lists, lots of people would go absolutely nuts looking for this information on other sites.
  • Delete, per superb nomination. This list is entirely trivial, and fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Robofish (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Excellent work by nominator. Vartanza (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides the problems listed by the nominator, I have a problem with the very premise of this list. I mean, what's the purpose of listing fictional characters by IQ. What's next? By age? By height? By weight? By shoe size? There is also a problem with the very notion of comparing these characters in one list. This leads to suggest that they all exist in the same universe. Can you actually tell me, that Shredder is so much smarter than Batman for instance. --Maitch (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:INTERESTING != WP:NOTABLE. (Nor is WP:USEFUL.) Strong arguments above. A list of disparate fictional characters, sorted by a fictional attribute, apparently providing such a list to anyone who might be interested rather than because it is a genuinely notable topic in the sense that credible third party writers have taken note of it. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of original research by synthesis. Although it may at first glance seem to be a simple summary of source material (which is permitted), I don't think that is the case here. The ranked list attempts to introduce new information regarding which works have the most intelligent characters. The creators of these fictional characters did not write up an IQ for purposes of comparing them to other fictional characters, but as a plot point for their work, and their work only; the IQs of these characters are therefore too loosely associated to justify bundling them into an article. Case in point: The IQs of Holly from Red Dwarf (12368) and Alakazam from Pokemon (5000) are not meant to reflect their supposed results on an IQ test at all (these scores are impossible on IQ tests), but rather a cute literary device to hammer in the point that they are supposedly really intelligent. The two figures are not comparable, you cannot say "Holly is smarter than Alakazam" by comparing the IQs given in Red Dwarf and Pokemon. Trying to make a ranked list as to which is the most intelligent is like arranging a contest "which author can come up with the highest number". Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sjakkalle above, in that the IQ scores for fictional characters are irrelevent and insignificant, except as a generality that one has a low, average or genius IQ. The exact number is irrelevant even in the same fictional universe, unless a character compares it to another's in a rivalry or something. 4Russeteer (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding to my thinking, I was reading the previous nomination, with a keep reason including "IQ is notable and I would strongly think that some popular culture encyclopedia in a library will have some discussion on it" and the discussion above "there's nothing stopping you from writing an article on IQ in fiction or similar" which I agree with. An article describing how IQ and intelligence is depicted and used in fictional works could definitely be notable. 4Russeteer (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete - I was shocked to see that this article previously survived AfD. WP:SYN might as well just be made a redirect into this article. Oren0 (talk) 07:16, 25 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 Talk · Review 00:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.)[edit]

List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2009 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two lists are unnecessary. The article titles are flawed, as a "number-two single" is defined as a song which peaked at number 2, correct? These lists include songs either on their way up or down from number one. Something like this fails WP:NOT#IINFO in my opinion... why not a list of number-seven or number-thirty singles? An article for number-one songs makes sense, but I don't think the same applies for other positions. - eo (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both I gotta agree with that this list is pointless-- and it has little meaning without the context of what which song was #1 while the entries on this list were #2; or why it left the spot-- did it rise to #1? Did it fall to #3 or #4? Does anyone else really care? Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. Mandsford (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointlessness LetsdrinkTea 22:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a pointless list, per nom and mandsford. Tavix (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both completely pointless. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 18:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Pilgrim (British Army officer)[edit]

Janet Pilgrim (British Army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No disrespect whatsoever to Major Pilgrim, but award of the Royal Red Cross is not sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia. It is a lower precedence award than the Distinguished Service Order and Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, neither of which would qualify someone for automatic inclusion. This is a disputed prod. There is a claim that the RRC is the nursing equivalent of the Victoria Cross, which is, I'm afraid, utter rubbish. Yes, a journalist did make that claim, but we all know that journalists are often uninformed and frequently make things up to make subjects seem more notable than they are. Military nurses are as eligible for the VC as any other military personnel and would be awarded the VC if their gallantry was up to that level. At the end of the day, Major Pilgrim is a relatively junior officer who has been decorated with a medal not uncommonly given to military nurses for doing a fine job, but is not sufficiently notable for her own article. If she was awarded a bar to the medal then I would wholeheartedly support her inclusion, but I'm afraid a single award does not merit inclusion without further proof of notability. If so, then every one of the many thousands of recipients of the DSO is also notable enough for an article! -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - nominator's reasons for deletion ("too many articles") are not a valid reasons (see WP:NOTPAPER). His argument for deletion is summed up by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nurse, Janet Pilgrim, is notable. This fact is demonstrated by her being awarded the Royal Red Cross. Esasus (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are claiming that she is notable purely for being awarded the RRC then you must by definition accept that everyone awarded a higher award (e.g. DSO or CGC) is also notable, which has not generally been considered to be the case. For decorated military figures, we have generally held that everyone awarded a "1st level" award (e.g. VC or GC) is inherently notable. Everyone else has to be assessed on individual merit, which is what we are here to discuss. I see no reason this officer is notable for anything other than being awarded a single decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Half the article is concerned with the award, and the other two sentences do not give any reason to support the inclusion of the nurse, nor do they suggest that she a recipeint of the nations highest military honor. Unless some other factor of notability emerges, or unless the article gets real long, real quick, I do not see any reason to keep it. As an alternative, I would be ok with merging the information into an article on the battle in which the nurse earned the award, assuming its on here. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. I agree with Esasus that we rely on significant coverage in reliable sources to tell us who's notable. The Telegraph is an important British daily newspaper and certainly counts as a reliable source; the coverage on Major Pilgrim cited in the sources is certainly significant; so Major Pilgrim is notable. QED.— However, I feel that WP:BLP1E applies here, and I also think there's not enough material there (and not enough sourceable material could be found) to warrant a separate article for Major Pilgrim. So I think we should merge this to a short section in Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have no problem whatsoever with the creation of an article on RRC recipients in general. In fact, this would be the best option. But I do not think we need a separate article on each recipient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since 2000, 7 RRCs and 29 ARRCs have been awarded. This compares to two VCs and three GCs. Since the VC is open to all military personnel and the GC to anybody and the RRC and ARRC are only open to the relatively small constituency of nursing staff, I hardly think you can compare the awards. While the RRC is technically higher than the ARRC, it is notable that every single RRC has been awarded to a senior officer and almost every ARRC to a junior officer or NCO, which suggests that the difference in gradation is solely due to rank and that the RRC/ARRC should really be considered for notability purposes as a single award. 36 awards among military nursing staff only (there aren't that many of them) does not make it a particularly rare award. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, we don't have to decide if the RRC makes someone notable. We only need to worry about Janet Pilgrim. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. However, since Esasus's argument is that she is notable solely because she has been awarded the RRC, the notability of RRC recipients in general is relevant to this discussion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. A Google search of 'Janet Pilgrim Royal Red Cross' returns only a handful of reliable sources, all of which only cover her being awarded the Royal Red Cross (eg, [3] and [4]). As a reminder, WP:BIO and WP:BLP are the relevant notability policies, not what editors think about the importance of the medal (people who win the highest level of medals are considered to be automatically notable because there's always lots of reliable sources available on them, and not because the medal is important per-se). Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is the highest award in their service, she's notable. Rare or common is not relevant. To say that although this is uncommon there is a analogous award that is common, and therefore this one is not notable, is getting a little paradoxical. And I'll point out that almost everyone whose won such awards as the VC has won it for a single event. As a reminder, the whole policy of notability=numbers of RSs is a stop gap measure because we can;t really determine exact notability in many cases. When it comes to a nation's highest award,we can. The sources arent basic, they merely reflect the notable accomplishment. DGG (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's not the highest award in their service. QARANC is but one corps of the British Army. The highest award in their service is thus the VC, just as it is for any other British soldier. Military nurses are eligible for any military decoration. Technically the RRC can be awarded to any nurse, not just a military one, although in recent years it has tended only to be awarded to military nurses. Many civilian nurses were awarded it during the two World Wars. If recipients of the highest award awarded only to a single service are automatically eligible for articles, then we should have articles on the dozens of police officers awarded the Queen's Police Medal every year. But that would be silly, since like the RRC it's usually awarded for exemplary, but not unique, services. We therefore need to decide whether Janet Pilgrim herself is notable. So far, the only argument put forward for her notability is that she has been awarded the RRC, the fifth highest military/gallantry decoration for which she is eligible (after the VC, GC, DSO and CGC). I do not believe that meets our notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
High enough. i urge you to write articles on those dozens of police officers. NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even as a British police officer myself and with the utmost respect for those who have been awarded the QPM, I do not consider it a high enough award to be a sole criterion to merit an article. Same with the RRC. Worthy, but not sufficient on its own to establish notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That seems to be WP:ILIKEIT. WP:NOTPAPER isn't a way to avoid notability requirements, and states that "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." This obviously is very much the case for articles like this where WP:BLP also applies and the subject has a right to privacy. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:Bio and WP:ONEEVENT. The Royal Red Cross is not the nursing equivalent to the Victoria Cross, and the subject does not hold any other form of notability; no disrespect to Ms Pilgrim of course. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:Bio and WP:ONEEVENT. She seems to have a somewhat notable reason to have a page. It should undergo a major expansion though should it be kept. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you please explain how WP:ONEEVENT justifies keeping this article? Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - To suggest that the Janet Pilgrim article is based on just one event is ridiculous. The article is based on a notable person, being Janet Pilgrim. The Royal Red Cross is evidence of such notability. She would not have been given such award had she not been deserving. To suggest that she is notable for one event would be like saying that an Olympic gold medalist should not have an article because he is notable for just the one event of winning in the Olympics. The Royal Red Cross award the result of her well deserving achievements. It is a symbol of her significance, not the event. Esasus (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is determined by the availability of reliable sources, and not editors' subjective views about whether a person is admirable. Could you please find some sources which cover other achievements by Major Pilgrim as required to meet the requirements set by WP:BIO and WP:BLP? It is clear that Major Pilgrim is a hero, but if the media hasn't covered her beyond a single event in her life, she's not notable and her right to privacy over-rides the case for having an article on her. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A gold medal winner would have a shoe deal and commercials and his or her face on a wheeties box and an invote to the next olympics and tv movie deal and, well you get the idea. I doubt Ms. Pilgrim will have any of that, which justifies ONEEVENT. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:Bio and WP:ONEEVENT. Some sloppy work by the journalist in question, leaving that aside, it seems a textbook case of what ONEEVENT is intended to cover. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:N is a straightforward manner. Baseless slagging of a journalist is not a convincing argument, and I'll trust the judgement of professionals over anonymous online avatars on what's notable. WilyD 13:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Bear in mind that there is a world of difference between a professional journalist and a professional expert in any field. Journalists are employed to write copy to sell their papers and do not always get their facts right or check their facts sufficiently. In fact, journalists these days frequently rely on Wikipedia for their "facts" - I know this since I have seen material I have written on Wikipedia appear verbatim under a journalist's byline! This doesn't particularly bother me, but it does show that it is not always wise, given some of the rubbish that appears on Wikipedia, to take what journalists write as gospel truth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not truly notable under WP:BIO, just another WP:ONEEVENT flash in the pan. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - obviously a fine officer, but she credits her staff more than herself for the award. (Of course, that adds to the notion that she deserves it. :-) ) Without more evidence of notability beyond running the busiest British field hospital since the Falklands, I don't think it's up to our inclusion levels -- but not blatantly so.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - based solely on the fact that the article has only one reference. If there were more refs from reliable sources I would vote keep Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:51, 26 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. G4 / hoax reincarnation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard K. Strehle slakr\ talk / 06:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Strehle[edit]

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

Hoax. --aktsu (t / c) 19:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be someone named Richard Strehle/Rich Strehle that has fought a few amateur fights, but that's it. Nothing that meets WP:N. --aktsu (t / c) 19:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a hoax; references are irrelevant, evidence easily found that fights did not occur. JJL (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clear Hoax. May be Self Promotion. Hitro 19:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing reliable found. Out of curiosity - he's the fifth child in the family, and has two older sisters and three younger brothers. What are the other two that are older than him then? Peridon (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax; looks remarkably like another hoax from a couple of months back. --Nate1481 13:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! Yes, it's the same one that was deleted Feb 8, 2009 and also Feb 2006 (see here). shirulashem (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by WereSpielChequers (CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Klein, writer/editor[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lee Klein, writer/editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:CREATIVE; possible WP:AUTOBIO; unreferenced MuffledThud (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I gave it a speedy delete tag – author requested deletion by replacing the page with "PLEASE DELETE". ~EdGl (talk) 17:23, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell curses[edit]

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

Unable to verify notability of subject. Article has WP:NPOV issues and was created by software author (WP:COI) and problematic editor User:Dfrench (who is Dana French per OTRS). Apparently recreated after previous deletionsuccessful prod. Listed on review of contributions following ANI incident and COIN incident. -- samj inout 18:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually it's not. It is a shell-script which implements a subset (perhaps 20%) of the features in the curses library. Tedickey (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a redirect is not appropriate so I've reverted your edit. Please wait until a consensus is reached before "being bold". -- samj inout 22:03, 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 redirect to Hitman Assassins. MBisanz talk 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitman Killers[edit]

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

Yet another no-context OR gameguide: see Hitman Assassins and Hitman weapons. Acroterion (talk) 18:12, 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 delete. Xclamation point 00:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girls in computer science[edit]

Girls in computer science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, and it contains a lot of original research. Also, its topic is redundant, as it covers the same area as Women in computing. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom. Also "girls" in the title??? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • i recommend deletion. possibly some good references, but not an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If not for the following reason I might have to reconsider, but the topic is redundant as it's basically the same topic as Women in computing. Jd027 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • … which we solve via article merger, not deletion. When you see duplicate articles by alternative titles, Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is the place to go, not AFD. Uncle G (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do we solve "redundancy" by merging? Ryan4314 (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it not obvious? It's very simple. Merge two redundant articles. Get one article as the end result. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging. Uncle G (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Redundancy means the information is duplicated in the other article. It already exists, therefore there is nothing to "merge". Look up "redundant" in a dictionary, very simple. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That, were it true, would just make step #2 of the article merger process a short one, not affect what process to use. It isn't, in fact, true, as actually comparing the two articles and noticing what is present in this one and absent in the other will quickly reveal. (I found it in 15 seconds.) Childish schoolyard parroting of the explanations given to you should be beneath you as a mature Wikipedia editor, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • LOL you're the one who started with the "Is it not obvious? It's very simple." and with a link to a policy I (and everyone else) have obviously read. If you don't enjoy being being talked-down-to, then I suggest you don't do it to other editors, unless you enjoy "teh dramaz". Ryan4314 (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although a redirect to Women in computing might be acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a personal essay and/or homework. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook
    • No. It's an attempt at an encyclopaedia article on a valid topic, that we know is valid because we can point to an existing article that we already had on the topic by one of its other names. (In fact, we can point to several, more in which in a moment.)

      And it's even properly based upon valid sources, contrary to the nominator's assertion of "original research" above. One of the sources, that it clearly cites, is a book by Allan Fisher and Jane Margolis, of Carnegie-Mellon University, based upon research that they did. Another of the sources is a paper in Communications of the ACM by a computer science professor. In other words, it's the start of an encyclopaedia article, based upon published sources that are identifiable experts writing in their fields of expertise.

      It's not original research; it's not a novel topic; it's not unverifiable; it's not an essay; and it's not even badly written, albeit that it doesn't follow our manual of style. It's simply a duplicate article, with a widely-used alternative name for the topic, in need of merger with our existing article that uses one of the other names for the topic (which itself is already marked for merger, notice, with yet another duplicate article, with yet another name for this same topic, which in turn is marked for merger with a fourth article, with a fourth alternative name). No deletion required. Uncle G (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/merge per Uncle G's excellent analysis. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this has WP:SOAPBOX issues but I guess merging some of it is fine. Nerfari (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because its utter bullshit. I recall a test someone did where boys and girls were offered a doll or a firetruck as a toy, and all the girls went for the dolls, and the boys for the firetruck. They did the same thing with chimpanzees, and the females went for the dolls, while the males went for the firetruck. There is no great oppression of women, forcing them to play with dolls, instead of computers. Its genetics. Anyone who works with children will tell you that a young age, boys and girls are attracted to different toys. Referencing a book by someone who is just giving their opinions, while there are surely other books by people with the same credentials(could afford to go to college and memorized enough information to pass the test and graduate with a degree), who say the exact opposite. Dream Focus 00:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: "I strongly disagree with the ideas referenced in this article" is not a valid argument for deletion. T L Miles (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having one author used as a source for the information, when a thousand others can be used as a source against the information, should be a valid reason to delete. Just because a book was published by someone, doesn't make it a credible reference. Does the information confer with what is officially recognized in textbooks on the subject, or any legitimate recognized scientific journals or studies? Dream Focus 16:34, 24 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 Talk · Review 00:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and science[edit]

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

Ludicrously POV despite many warnings to the main editor. It's not about science, just a chaotic jumble of ideas bringing together cloning, global warming, education, astrology, arranged marriages(!) and much more. The references are to a POV newspaper, an astrology website and other sources that don't seem to be satisfy WP's criteria of independence and reliability. This article is allegedly part of a student project but the main editor has declined all offers of help with this mess and is curiously reticent about the project. Specifically it fails WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:VER and possibly also WP:SOAPBOX and maybe WP:FRINGE. andy (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a good article could in principle be written on this topic, but the current content of this article would be hindrance rather than a help to anybody capable of making that effort. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research, but any relevant, actually well-sourced information should be merged into Hinduism if it doesn't exist there or in one of the "child pages" already. Jd027 (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is poorly written POV synthesis of dubious trivia culled from unreliable sources (all sources except the Pingree book are junk). Other articles created by the same group of editors (Islam and civil rights, Taoism and death) have similar problems. Personally, despite assuming good faith, I cannot believe this is written as part of an (unnamed) university project as is being claimed. As TimVickers says, an encyclopedic article on the topic may be feasible, but the current attempt is worse than having nothing, and the sourcable parts of the topic are already covered better in existing wikipedia articles, such as, Hindu views on evolution, articles on the Vedangas etc. The authors have refused repeated offers to help them get started in userpage, and have undone redirects; so deletion is the only remaining option. Abecedare (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - May I say this is just a chaotic jumble? --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this editor has voted twice here.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this is a discussion, not a vote Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. School project that didn't wind up creating anything more than a content-forky POVish essay. DMacks (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No WP:OR--Caspian blue 22:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another terrible school-project article, complete with surly teacher (on the talk page). We really need some policy to deal with school projects, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The article comprises almost entirely of original research and biased statements. The subject could potentially be re-visited at a later date and be remade into a cohesive article, but we need to delete this version as this is not what we want readers to see. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete. I believe we've achieved consensus here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE - please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taoism and death andy (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body. I really don't like doing this, honest, but I'm meeting implacable resistance to my attempts to tidy up this mess. andy (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rescue I don't see the POV problem here, either. There is no position being advanced in this article. Can anyone explain exactly what POV is being advanced here?There are a number of subsections being introduced that bring topics relating to Hinduism and Science together under one banner. As for "tidying up a mess," I would applaud ou if those were your efforts. Deleting is not tidying. As Wikipedia policy states, "Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement." So, why not move to actually improve this article rather than simply trying to delete it almost immediately after its creation? And why call me surly for trying to do so?Vote Cthulhu (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If you truly think the articles in question (this and the others nominated) can be fixed, why do you refuse the option of userfication? This could still be done! I don't care if your class is over. These are very likely to be deleted in their current states. If we put them in your userspace, you could work on them to your heart's content. Aleta Sing 13:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer These are not my articles, so there is no sense in userfying them to me. I think that they can be fixed rather than deleted, but that doesn't mean that I am going to fix them all by myself.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There maybe could be an article written on this topic, but this article ain't it, nor is even redeemably so (in my opinion) except by starting from scratch. Tweakign a bit here and there can't fix the overall "this article is an unfocused collection of writings on various topics that involve hinduism and/or science" but don't specifically address and make a case for notability of the topic as given. It's up to those who think it's redeemable and want to see it redeemed to redeem it, given consensus among others that it can't (and burned bridges to them!). That's how collaborative writing works.. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above but Vote Cthulhu.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked up information on the wikipedia article on the religion. It reads "Hindu beliefs vary widely". They don't have a single leader, or any universal doctrine about the scientific issues mentioned. The opinions of one leader in their widely varied religion, does not reflect the rest. Unless they have a conference where all their officially recognized leaders came together, and voted on something, or at least the leaders of a significant number of people, then you can't write an article saying what they believe in. Dream Focus 20:30, 24 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 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (dice game)[edit]

The Game (dice game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. My prod rationale was: "No reliable sources. Gameboardgeek pages can be added by anyone, so not a reliable source. Need outside independent sources showing some reason why anyone reading an encyclopedia would care." The person who removed the prod claimed to add reliable sources but simply added text from sites selling the game, failing criteria for independent non-trivial sources. There's no indication that this meets any Wikipedia criteria for notability. DreamGuy (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's a corresponding article in the German Wikipedia and a reasonable number of Google news hits. My German's pretty rusty, but this article seems to indicate that this game won an award (Verleihung des Kritikerpreises). Pburka (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bogus AfD nomination; edit in question is here [5] Reliable Sources were added, including an inline citation of a non-trivial published book that covers the game (and several variations) in detail. I added no text from any external sites as the nominator claimed and only added citations and updated the infobox.
Per WP:RSUE Reliable Sources are not required to be English only: Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella Nardoni case for one example of this.
Citations for The Game (dice game):
--Tothwolf (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: removed stray '|' from the link provided by Pburka. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't read anything in the nom that hasn't been addressed or is relevant. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Spiel des Jahres is one of the most significant awards in the field of boardgame design. The game's longevity also suggests notability. I would prefer more independent third party coverage, however, and it is a problem that a lot of the German language references are primary source. AngoraFish 木 23:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the sources are there, notability is clearly established. MuZemike 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep several independant sources, won a notable award. Edward321 (talk) 15:24, 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 merge to John Serry, Sr.. MBisanz talk 06:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Rhapsody[edit]

American Rhapsody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Concerto For Free Bass Accordion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete or Merge (to John Serry, Sr.) articles written by late composer's son (WP:COI) which have WP:V and WP:NPOV issues and are lacking reliable sources commenting on their importance. Listing per COIN incident. -- samj inout 16:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you sure? This Google search is not returning anything but work unrelated to Serry, or mirrors of Wikipedia. The title 'American Rhapsody' has been used by others. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm not sure, but I don't have easy access here to any of the offline sources this would likely be in. Predates the Web, after all. And there's no WP:DEADLINE for getting this done...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: neither articulation of notability nor substantive third-party sourcing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
user:pjs012915 Do not delete ---the composition has been published by a major music publisher which is still active in te field (Alpha Music co) and describes a musical composition which has been reviewed and accepted for archival and research purposes by a professional archivist and Special Collections Librarian at a major music conservstory library Eastman School of Music (See link in article) where the compositiion is used for educational and research purposes into early 20th century american music. thanks pjs012915
Comment This user is the composer's son and article author. -- samj inout 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As indicated this composition and the Concerto For Free Bass Accordion have been recently archived at the Eastman School of Music's Sibley music Library-- but has not been listed on its web page--for verification researchers can contact the Special Collections Librarian and archivist David Peter Coppen at the university by E-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 585 274-1335 for complete verification. They may also attempt to contact Professor Eric Bradler- Professor of Accordion at the University of Denver's Lamont School of Music http://playgroundensemble.org/bios.html who has acquired copies of both compositions for instructional purpose at the university. The Lamont School of music is a major conservatory and one of the few conservatories in the United States which continues to offer advanced studies in the classical accordion. Professor Bradler can be reached by E-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 303 871-6977 at the university. He may also have information regarding citation of this work by Professor Robert Davine--the former head of the Accordion Studies Department at the Lamont School who was a mentor to professor Bradler and a studnet of the composer John Serry Sr. as verified on his web page (See User talk:EdJohnston for link. Proferssor Davine intended to publish a book which cites major works for accordion prior to his death and expressed an interest in including this work back in the late 1990's. I'm not certain if the book was every published but Profesor Bradler may have additional information. See comments posted on User talk: EdJohnston for further details.
For those editors who continue to doubt publication of the original composition for accordion, verification can be obtained by contacting the composer's publisher : Alpha Music Inc., 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Spring Valley, NY 10977-6224 Phone 845 356-0800 Mr. Michael Nurko-President. Used copies of the music can often be found on E-bay. thnkas again.
In addition I do not agree that coverage of these compositions is trivial in so far as they provide an insight into attempts to advance a musical instrument into orchestral ensembles in the United States during the early 20th century long after it had gained acceptance in Europe (as the Wikipedia article on the Accordion and it use in classical music makes clear. Contributions to this integration process by American composers of this period are quite limited but nonetheless of historic value to researchers and musicologists of modern American music. By retaining these articles Wikipedia assumes an invaluable role in expanding our understanding of the evolution of music in the USA. It should also be noted that the article has received some interest in the Italian Wikipedia where it has been translated. Evidently researchers in Europe have an interest in the music. In addition the particular composition American Rhapsody was composed by the composer as a homage to George Gershwin and constitutes a rare musical expression of early 20th century Jazz by musician who is documented to have performed with a major big band jazz ensemble under the noted conductor Shep Fields for an instrument which was often shunned and/or ignored ignored by classical musicians of this era in AMerica for a variety of reasons (See Accordion- use in classical music article. By preserving this article Wikipedia provides researchers and musicologists with a valuable insight into the evolution of music for the accordion in the United States which might otherwise not be possible while also providing access to a revised edition for piano. Thanks again for your interest. ------Pjs012915 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Pjs012915 (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Pjs012915 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)pjs012915[reply]
Comment This vote is again the composer's son and article author, though I'm not sure about the validity of their arguments - can someone familiar with WP:MUSIC please assess? -- samj inout 07:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI issue? JamesBurns (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we're here - the listing was in response to a WP:COIN incident. -- samj inout 05:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious vanity articles by COI editor attempting to inflate the items' importance beyond all recognition. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to John Serry, Sr.. Since that article does not have a call for deletion, presumably notability there has not (yet) been called into question. The arguments presented here in favor of retaining this as a separate article come down to a claim that the score is archived at the Eastman School of Music, and that it is published by Alpha Music. Suggesting that doubters should email various people for confirmation of facts is not an acceptable Wikipedia documentation practice, nor an acceptable practice anywhere else. Nevertheless, if these criteria were sufficient to establish notability for the work independent of the composer article, then a number of fairly obscure works by Wayne Barlow, Burrill Phillips, Ronald LoPresti, Robert McBride, and other, lesser lights should also have separate Wikipedia articles (and I note that there are not even composer articles for Barlow and LoPresti). If archiving in any library and publication were sufficient, then tens of thousands of other works would also qualify.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Jerome Kohl; individual pieces are not always notable by themselves, even if the compoaser may be. There is very little evidence here per WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to composers article (most info appears to be OR so not much to merge). Being archived at the Eastman School of Music and published by Alpha Music do not make them notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 17:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Towne[edit]

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

Unsourced, but that could be dealt with. The key issue here, IMHO, is whether the winner of a gaming award like this meets notability requirements. And to me, I do not think it does. But I'm not 100% certain, and thus AFD rather than A7 CSD, so that others may weigh in on the issue. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:56, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consumers of The Coca-Cola Company[edit]

Consumers of The Coca-Cola Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We could fix the ridiculous title - no-one has consumed the Coca-Cola Company yet but as to the text! Even though refs have been added, this remains a ridiculous piece of trivia. Are we going to have a corresponding one Consumers of PepsiCo products? And branch out into other fields companies who buy Ford rather than General Motors vehicles? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per above, and obvious incomplete list. T-95 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This clearly contravenes Wp:Trivia. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although I was relieved to see that this is not an attempt to list all of the individual people who have ever consumed Coca-Cola products (it's "only" a list of companies and institutions that use products of the Coca-Cola company), it's still a trivial and inherently unmaintainable list. --Orlady (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is mostly sourced, which is good, but I can't quite tell what the point is, and ultimately who buys what isn't really something an encyclopedia can reasonably cover. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The number of restaurants, etc. which serve Coke products is so large as to make this article unmaintainable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial list. Only covers a small fraction of Coke customers. Information changes every day as customers are gained and lost. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial list, and it unlikely that, for example, someone would look into the fact Barack Obama prefers Coke to Pepsi in pondering whether to reelect him. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable trivial list. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay, we can make Non-consumers of The Coca-Cola Company if the article survives.--Caspian blue 22:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gues what guyz, itz snowing! Tavix (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is useless and will always be incomplete --FeldBum (talk) 15:15, 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 keep. Xclamation point 00:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Weiss[edit]

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

Possible hoax, didn't want to CSD and be wrong. T-95 (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- Legitimate actor. I added a couple of refs to support. There are many more out there if needed. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep not a hoax, but the article is short, poorly written, and makes some strange claims, such as winning an Obie award in 1959, which according to the NYTimes article was just a year after he dropped out of high school. Possible? I guess. Likely? Not really. No objection to deletion if the article isn't substantially improved in the next month or so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The article needs a complete rewrite if it is to be kept. However, I do see that a playwright named Jeff Weiss won an Obie, but in 1980, for a play called That's How the Rent Gets Paid. Assuming this is the same person, the article should be kept if it is rewritten and sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article has not been improved sufficiently yet to warrant keeping it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, notability highly questionable, but the NYT reference is a WP:RS that's high-profile leads me to expect a marginal pass of WP:NOBJ. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Great work by ttonyb1 make the notability obvious. At least one entire New York Times article was written about the guy. The article's a stub now, and the tiny bit that is there might be wrong...or it might not be. But it doesn't seem to be a hoax. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 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 06:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John McBride (photographer)[edit]

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

A photographer who, we're told, has had individual photographs published here and there. No mention of any exhibitions (let alone solo exhibitions) or any major contributions to anything (let alone entire books). What's said to be his best known work was published in The East Villager (now redlinked). There is a mention in a note of a single review, but the context suggests that this is not of McBride's work but instead of an album for whose cover McBride contributed a photo. No other critical commentary is cited. We do read that a selection of McBride's photographs were chosen for inclusion in the permanent collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, but this claim rests on a letter from the museum to McBride. No mention of where this letter is published. Perhaps the editor citing it can see it directly, as this article has been written by this one author, whose contributions to Wikipedia all seem to have been on or directly related to John McBride. However, McBride doesn't seem close to meeting WP:CREATIVE. Hoary (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC) .... One part deleted as now obsolete -- Hoary (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Original author responds

As I am very new to contributing to Wikipedia I have tried to do the best job possible as I also prefer well-written articles. I am glad that there are people like Hoary who volunteer the time to edit Wikipedia and improve articles. The edits made by others of the article on John McBride have been mostly good and by forcing me to correct my mistakes I am slowly learning how to properly structure articles. I must say, however, that I am a little taken aback at the tone of the negative comments and this certainly dampens my enthusiasm for making further contributions to Wikipeda, and I can't see the point of the comment "gibberish...still terrible."

Maybe I'm incorrect, but my impression of Wikipedia was that it was better than an old-fashioned encyclopedia because it is democratic, free and its openness allows for a healthy wide-range of views as to what is important and/or notable, while the old encyclopedias suffered from an institutional bias and were restricted by the physical limitations of space (limited number of pages).

- I responded to earlier criticisms to the article by adding, or attempting to add whatever information others said were missing and I can add more relevant info if need be. I added numerous references to back up the text of the article, even though I thought it overkill, but I was responding to criticism of missing sources.

- There is no Wikipedia page for The East Villager newspaper as of yet, although there should be as it was a well-read paper serving a very prominent area of New York City. The fact that there isn't one yet doesn't mean that it was unimportant, and I am often surprised to find that an important subject does not yet have an article on Wikipedia.

- The Rolling Stone review was used as a source with regard to the Masters of Reality album, not John McBride, so I am unsure how to respond to that comment. Rolling Stone doesn't review the work of photographers to my knowledge. This part of the article may needed to be edited though as it may be a little more info than needed.

- The source for the inclusion in the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston was added in response to criticism. The website for the museum does not seem to have updated their list so the letter was used as a source. Many books list letters as sources in their endnotes and clearly very few letters are published - most are in private collections - so I don't see why the letter cannot be a source until the museum updates its list.

- McBride's work has been published numerous times and the list in the article is just a partial one.

- McBride's work has been in group shows but I thought that would clutter the article.

- Is there a "book" standard that defines notability in terms of being a noteworthy photographer vs. publications in newspapers or magazines?

- As stated, McBride's work is in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston and is also in private collections.

I am grateful that Hoary has written articles on numerous subjects including Japanese photographers and I am glad that I can browse Wikipedia and learn more about them. Such Japanese photographers would most likely not ever be mentioned in a standard encyclopedia, and the fact that I haven't yet heard of them nor read about them makes Hoary's contribution, in my mind, more valuable and not less so.

Clearly, I think that John McBride (photographer) meets Wikipedia's standards and I hope that Hoary will reconsider his opinion. --Darknessandlight (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep It appears to meet WP:Creative though not by a lot. I did find an additional web reference from The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. It appears to include a list of works by John McBride purchased by the museum http://www.mfah.org/pdf/AR2007.pdf Added in this edit at 17:40, 21 March 2009 by Wperdue
  • brief reply to article writers comments: Wikipedia is not a democracy, as described at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is notMercurywoodrose (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although not exactly an article that we could demonstrate as the criteria of WP:CREATIVE incarnate, the article still meets the criteria by receiving significant critical attention and has played a role in creating significant work. He seems to be notable within his own field. Jd027 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, also for what it's worth a clear case of conflict of interest, and WP:NOTMYSPACE. This is one more example of a problem that comes up in AFD time and again - confusing evidence of output with evidence of notability. Any journalist, illustrator, editor, backing singer, etc. etc. will generate a certain amount of Google hits (and even the occasional minor award) simply by virtue of being active, working professionals. Multiple ghits, however, do not of themselves support an individual's notability. The core policy is absolutely clear, "significant coverage" is required for notability, which means sources that "address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content". That is, several authors in reliable sources need to have considered the individual sufficiently important to warrant an article or two about them as the primary subject, not simply mention the individual in the context of something related, such as an exhibition or news incident. Articles such as this, when sourced at all, are inevitably lists of random mentions of an individual's output containing few if any references to coverage of the individual as a worthy subject by him or herself, which on a related note means that they fall into the problem of original research as well. AngoraFish 木 21:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • AngoraFish: "This is one more example of a problem that comes up in AFD time and again - confusing evidence of output with evidence of notability." Interesting that you should say this. I have mixed thoughts about it, as "notability" in WP terms often means little more than buzz of a kind assiduously generated by PR flacks. The Beckham bambini (for example) have this ersatz "notability", a fact that appears to embarrass even the "coverage"-bedazzled writers of the notability page, who make an exception for mere family members. My own inclination is to be impressed by output and the hell with buzz; thus for example my stub on this fellow. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm misreading you here, but it appears that we are in agreement. The 'buzz' that you talk about is very much the kind of dross that ends out padding out articles such as this. WP's core policy on notability is significantly more rigorous than "three mentions in a mainstream newspaper and he/she/it gets over the line". Tragically, the "three mainstream mentions" rule is the most common standard applied at AFD. AngoraFish 木 09:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (this vote by orig. author) (1) Thank you to Jd027 for finding the source for the acquisition of work by the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. (2) As for the East Villager, it deserves a Wikipedia page. By the way, the editor of the East Villager was Steven Vincent, a journalist who was later murdered in 2005 (by death squads) in Iraq for his writings on death squads within the Iraqi police forces. --Darknessandlight (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that it was Wperdue who found the reference (though the confusion over this is understandable). -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup – it doesn't even need terribly that much cleanup for it to be a perfectly OK article. Clearly notable. MuZemike 00:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kind-of apology: Darknessandlight writes: I must say, however, that I am a little taken aback at the tone of the negative comments and this certainly dampens my enthusiasm for making further contributions to Wikipeda, and I can't see the point of the comment "gibberish...still terrible." That's from my edit summary ("removing the most obvious gibberish, etc; still terrible"), for this edit. Distinctly below the standard of edit summary I expect from people messing with my articles, I must admit. Sorry about that. Well, I was in a bad mood, as I was still recovering from the ardors of half-heartedly attempting to socialize with friends around one table in a restaurant while a much larger group were hooting, shrieking, and (this being Tokyo) clapping around a nearby table. (So, I'm a misanthrope.) "Terrible" was an unnecessarily harsh description of the article as presenting notability. I didn't mean "gibberish", I meant "puffery"; and I meant this for only some of what I removed, specifically: (i) internationally recognized, (ii) noted, and (iii) my black beast legendary; each about a separate person. All of this looked as if it had been intended to sprinkle stardust on McBride by association, and none of it's necessary: all three of these people deserve articles; one already existed, a second has just been provided by Darknessandlight himself (thank you!), and time permitting I'd be happy to create the third myself. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apology accepted even if it is a "kind-of apology." I promise it wasn't me at the noisy table! As for articles needed, at least in reference to this thread: (1)Anne Tucker, curator of photography has been written up in Time Magazine, very noteworthy in my opinion, deserves mention in Wikipedia (2) East Villager newspaper as noted above. (3) Rick Rubin already has a long article - he is very famous. (4) George Krause has article although it could be expanded.--Darknessandlight (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dammit, D&L, if we go on like this, pretty soon we'll even get to be friends or something. Anne Wilkes Tucker, as I think she's more often/properly called (tho' feel free to correct me), has just got a crummy stub towards an article, and within a few minutes she'll get a redirect from Anne Tucker as well. Evidence in a publicly accessible PDF of museum holdings is to my mind a major help toward establishing the notability of McBride; do please continue to improve the article and I'll keep an open mind about it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any suggestions on improving it? I don't think it needs expansion...maybe to reduce length of Publication Credits section - and reduce number of footnotes in this section - seems to be overkill, no? Popular Culture section should be kept I think and it is properly footnoted. Also I removed mention of Ann Tucker earlier, thought maybe it was too wordy.--Darknessandlight (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can never have too many footnotes, especially while your article is in AfD hell. Indeed, you might elaborate and improve the footnotes by linking to what's available online (as I did here). ¶ No evidence for a place in a second collection? -- Hoary (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not sure. Private collections? Hard to find a reference for that. Added a source for Pop Culture section.--Darknessandlight (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Right: I have the works of two photographers of some note in my own private collection; there's no reference for this, as it's a very unremarkable fact. If my private collection were famous, things might be different; but the majority of private collections are unremarkable. Well, you're going to have to dig around some more. You could make things a lot easier for your readers: see this latest edit of mine, in which I link to a source that you gave and for which I had to Google. (Unfortunately the source doesn't mention McBride.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks for fixing the source link. The notes for this section fit together. Shadow back issues are not online yet as far as I can tell. http://mediafilter.org/mff/shadow.html is the Shadow website but Archive is a dead link. Clayton Patterson, mentioned in the article that you linked, is another person deserving of an article imho.--Darknessandlight (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If you know exactly where something once was (or should be) but it has gone, try asking web.archive.org for the URL. -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. It's nice that people want to stretch and accept letters from museums, but if it hasn't been reported on it's not notable by definition. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it was nice of Hoary to make an article on Anne Tucker, but I don't see how she meets inclusion criteria either. Where is the substantial coverage from reliable independent sources? A note from "mom" just doesn't cut it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Tucker was called "America's Best Curator" by Time Magazine in 2001 see http://designtaxi.com/news.jsp?id=966&monthview=1&month=3&year=2004. Source for McBride's work in Museum of Fine Arts, Houston was found in the 2007 Annual Report for the museum and available in PDF link see notes for John McBride (photographer).--Darknessandlight (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come come, let's not natter about other articles here. If on the other hand you'd care to nominate Anne Tucker for deletion, go right ahead. -- "Mr Nice Guy" Hoary 06:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The museum material does show the necessary notability. True, the source is informal, but the criterion is having works in major museums, not having published sources that show works in major museums. Given the problems of getting this information from most museums for anything recent, the letter is sufficient. DGG (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um ... I see one claim about museum holdings, that his photos are in one museum. This claim is impeccably sourced. Am I missing something else? -- Hoary (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're missing substantial evidence the subject of this article is notable. There are lots of museums. Some are more notable than others. Every work in every museum, does not make every artist notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly true that there are lots of museums and that some are more notable than others. But what are you saying here about the Houston Museum of Fine Arts or about possession by this museum? Hoary (talk) 00:19, 25 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 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Mastery[edit]

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

Complete original research. Words like "Mental Maturity Aging" are invented, just mentioned in some blog, with no other source to back it up. Cenarium (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to be original research taken directly from a blog http://thavamalargovindasamy.blogspot.com/
  • Strong delete Does not meet inclusion guidelines for notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per ChildofMidnight--Moloch09 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopaedic. But - doesn't it sound like the possible basis for a rather profitable Church? If we get in now at the ground level....... Peridon (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Such as Mind Mastery Centre ? Oh, strangely, created by the very same user. Cenarium (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any context for this information. There are several "Mind Mastery" hits that come up in google that don't seem to have anything to do with each other. Content, as it exists is not helpful and there is not enough information to establish context and move forward with the article.--Adam in MO Talk 03:16, 23 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. Xclamation point 00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist editorial stance[edit]

The Economist editorial stance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails WP:N. That guideline states: "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." The only two sources which are independent of the subject are removed, leaving only an article with 74 sources which are ALL The Economist. This is not how WP works; WP is WP:NOT a place for advertising nor the WP:SOAPBOX promotion of an article subjects views and opinions, and particularly not in a cruft list such as this. The main article is already advertorial in nature, in that it too is lacking sources which are independent of the subject. A list like this is not the solution to reducing cruft in articles, the solution is to delete it, not create a separate article for it, and there is no evidence that their editorial stance in itself is notable because the article is lacking those independent sources. Russavia Dialogue 13:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 13:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 13:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 13:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need a WP:POVFORK for The Economist. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete'. The article is misconceived and I agree that it is a POVfork .Despite being list based, and backed up by short quotations, this is not an uncontentious list article. A magazine is not like a political party. It does not have a manifesto. It is true that The Economist is broadly on the economic right wing but its many different writers will hold different views within (and occasionally outside) of this broad area. Even the views of the editors will change with time. This makes the lists very problematic. Are the "endorsements" truly endorsements or just favourable coverage culled from selected articles? Could completely different quotes have been selected to give a different impression? I think so, and I think that kills the validity of the lists unless they can be referenced to secondary, reliable sources. The one exception to this is the endorsements for UK general elections. It is common in the UK for newspapers and magazines to tell their readers who they should vote for and these endorsements are generally presented as the view of the publication as a whole, rather than an individual writer. (Actually, this might make an interesting article in itself). I also feel it is guilty of recentism. Did The Economist only start expressing opinions in 1955? What did it publish up until then? Crosswords? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was only joking about the 1955 bit. Anyway. I would like to change my vote from "Delete" to "nothing in particular" which is sort of a neutral to weak keep with a possible merge tagged on. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While any organisation can be said to have a POV I don't think that deciding this based on statements made in individual columns is going to give an accurate picture. In addition this is simply a POVfork. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the article after some discussions back on 2005. If you want to read about the rationale behind creating it, please have a look here and the few sections below. If you ask me about my opinion in 2009, my answer would be... delete it temporary keep to see if user:Uncle G can make it better. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - topic would be an interesting thing to have in a WP:RS to link to, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Problem originated with excessive detail on the topic in the Economist article; better solution would be to cut down to appropriate size. Rd232 talk 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I will not dignify the article by giving a reason. Kransky (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: AfD is not a vote, it is based on the strength and validity of arguments, so if you do not give a reason your post isn't worth the processing cycles used to post it. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this article is twofold:
    • Whilst it began well, back in 2005, all of the good parts of the article were removed and placed back into the main article, leaving the bad parts behind, which then grew, cargo-cult style, into the article as it is now: a quotefarm of random snippets from the magazine itself from which the encyclopaedia reader is expected to deduce an editorial stance. Or, worse, Wikipedia editors are taking these quotations and performing an original analysis of their own to imply an editorial stance.
    • There is material to be had on the editorial stance of the magazine. I just found two sources that devote pages (in one of them, almost an entire chapter) to analysis of its editorial stance. Indeed, one of the sources covers aspects of the magazine's editorial stance that isn't even mentioned anywhere in our articles, either in this article or in the parent one, and that I suspect Wikipedia editors with a recentist bias aren't aware even exists as a topic in sources.
  • I suspect that it's time for a Kerrrzappp!. Uncle G (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge There are countless WP articles on news media outlets with sections on "Editorial Stance". This should be similarly merged. Can you really argue that an article which criticises the Economist for supporting that the Irish starve in the Great Famine is an advertisement for the Economist? PetersV       TALK 14:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't think anybody disputes that the editorial stance of The Economist should be covered in its article. The argument is that anything of value has already been merged and that The Economist already has adequate coverage of this, making the lists here redundant. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What lists would those be, exactly? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to the list based nature of the article when it was put up for deletion. I see that you have changed it now. I didn't realise that was what you meant by "Kerrrzappp". --DanielRigal (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's what I usually use as the edit summary. ☺ You can probably find a few in my contributions history. Here is one, for example. Uncle G (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, many many papers in the uk and US were against intervention till 95. Brendan Simms book Britain's Unfinest Hour is great but the Economist wasn't the only target--Moloch09 (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a fascinating and informative article on a subject not really covered in The Economist. Disc space is cheap. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge The material seems best suited to integration within The Economist article but deletion is not appropriate as that would be a matter of normal editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the original consensus for its creation here Talk:The_Economist/Archive_1#Opinion_list. Martintg (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is trivia and unmaintainable. The Economist is a weekly magazine and every single edition has opinions on a wide range of subjects. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But, there are WP articles on developing or current events that are much more difficult to maintain and whose subjects are not so systematic with such long-lasting effects. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:POVFORK. Parts of it could probably be moved to the main article. Tavix (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem, from WP:POVFORK "What content/POV forking is not ... Articles whose subject is a POV" I rest my case. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per the consensus at Talk:The_Economist/Archive_1#Opinion_list. The Economist, like The Nation or the Wall Street Journal has a defined and much written about history of having specific editorial lines. That is hardly a) a crime, despite what some American journalists from the late 20th century were taught, or b) non-notable, as it is a topic studied, written about, (and frankly) universally known. If folks working on the article The_Economist want to split this section off as an article, then we should be helping them make it the best article we can, not deleting it. T L Miles (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and then debate merging.Biophys (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Very Strongest Possible Keep - see WP:BEFORE. The Economist's editorial policy is actually quite significant in its own way, and it is easily verifiable. One example: just last night, I was reading Michael Brook's "13 Things That Don't Make Sense" (ISBN 978-1-60751-666-8), which had arrived fresh fromn the Quality Paperback Book Club as a featured special. There is a full paragraph on page 67 in that book merely about the magazine's support for cold fusion experiments and the philosophy of science, with a quote and an analysis of the same. You can rename, merge, whatever, but don't delete it, because it is notable. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC) I've added in a citation with two, count'em, 2, books that cited the Economist's 1989 editorial on cold fusion experiments. Clean up the POV, don't delete it. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 24 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 Talk · Review 00:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek fifth[edit]

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

Complete crystal balling. Quick Google search reveals this, which says "Dreamworks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg has announced that there will be a Shrek 4 (2010) and Shrek 5, but THAT IS IT!" Cycle~ (talk) 13:05, 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 delete. Xclamation point 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Andrews[edit]

James C. Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot find any trace of evidence that this person exists, or what he is notable for. Supposedly interviewed by Jonathan Ross and Jay Leno, and featured/profiled in the Guardian and Independent newspapers, but Google and Gnews searches turn up nothing. Fails WP:V at least. Tassedethe (talk) 12:32, 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 merge to Clanton Park. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Heights, Toronto[edit]

Wilson Heights, Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability and most of the information anyways is in the article Clanton Park. A Knight Who Says Ni suggested the deletion. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 12:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Only articles about real people, organizations and musical recordings need to assert notability. Places of reasonable size are inherently notable. AngoraFish 木 12:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, this is a clear redirect to Clanton Park. This did not need to come to AFD. Go on, be bold. AngoraFish 木 12:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Verifiable place ... and news sources mentioned it in a Riding reorganization. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 12:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's likely a reference to Wilson Heights (electoral district), not the neighbourhood. Mindmatrix 23:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC) t[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Clanton Park. This is a stub which says little more than it is a part of Clanton Park. It is better placed in context of the whole neighbourhood. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Clanton Park, without prejudice against the possibility of moving the merged article back to the Wilson Heights title if there's a consensus to do so — there may be some POV debate over which is the better name for the article, but there's no value in having two separate articles about the same topic. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Clanton Park, since it represents a portion of that neighbourhood, and there isn't anything unique or distinguishing noted in the article. Mindmatrix 23:07, 24 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. yandman 15:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Lee Cloyd[edit]

Jerry Lee Cloyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was already the subject of an A7 deletion. It was recreated and the second Speedy Delete was changed to a Notability tag. A search of Google and Google News turns up nothing on this subject. The article does not meet WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's indeed nothing about him on Google. Laurent (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, primarily for failing verifiability due to lack of sources, but secondarily because I don't think that winning the Soldier's Medal is sufficient notability for the article to stand. —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 18:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Aldrich (Libertarian)[edit]

Charles Aldrich (Libertarian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:POLITICIAN. Non-notable minor party candidate. Any relevant coverage is predominantly election related trivia or self pub. Tagged for notability since November 2008. AngoraFish 木 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unelected, no notable coverage. WP:POLITICIAN is quite clear. I42 (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons given by I42; WP:POLITICIAN and the general notability guidelines means if you weren't elected and don't have other independent coverage for something you have done then your article can go. Ironholds (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per NYT [8] as his number of votes was vastly greater than any margin of victory. This is one of those rare cases where a "loser" has had a great impact -- one does not need to win to be notable in such a case. The political history of the Aldrich family is substantial - and should add notability if anything. Collect (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008. The information presented in the article is verifiable (per Collect) and notable information about the 2008 Senate election. However, the subject is only notable for one event and thus the information should be merged to the main article. -Atmoz (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:N, it's better to trust the judgement of professional information sources than J. Random Wikipedian. WilyD 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ONEEVENT and WP:Politician. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Atmoz; not notable in his own right, just another WP:ONEEVENT happenstance. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 26 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. I don't see any point in stringing out an AfD where no reliable sources have been provided whatsoever to prove the player passes WP:BIO for sportspeople, and nearly every Keep has come from a confirmed sockfarm. If anyone can provide hard evidence that Redshaw has ever played for a fully professional club at a national level, then please provide it and the article can be fixed. Until then, I see no point in more disruption. Black Kite 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Redshaw[edit]

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



Contested prod. Original reason for deletion was "This article is completely unreferenced, and the only link that is provided is to a subscription-only site. There is no evidence in any Manchester United-related sources that this boy ever played for them, which therefore casts the truthfulness of the whole article into doubt." This article has previously been deleted on suspicion of being a hoax laced with slivers of truth. Still no evidence can be found that the player ever went on trial with Los Angeles Galaxy. Basically, it reads like a CV, and I have massive suspicions that the author of the article is either Redshaw himself or one of his friends. – PeeJay 10:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the player does exist, but has not played at a high enough level to meet WP:ATHLETE. A quick search of the Post War English & Scottish Football League A - Z Player's Database confirms he never made a senior league appearance for Man Utd OR Wrexham, and this site has him playing for Wrexham in the FA Youth Cup only. This site confirms he made 2 sub appearances for Caernarfon Town in 2004–05, while the Bolton News describes him as a "Former Manchester United youngster" who played non-league football for Rossendale United, and had trials in Italy. The only sources relating to his MLS career mention him playing in a friendly game for FC Dallas before being released before the 2007 season started; there is no mention of him making a pro appearance for LA Galaxy. GiantSnowman 11:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Please visit [www.SoccerAssociation.com] it has all info on players and is a professional website what scouts coaches and professional people to do with football use. You will find it as Mark Redshaws information on there so I dont understand why you would look on non-professional websites to decide on players pasts, he is also currently playing in Greece now which is a very high level of football. (LLC) also why would you take the player off the current squad list on Ethnikos Piraeus I dont understand this situation the lad plays in Greece now for Ethnikos he signed on the 22nd of January and if you just look on professional websites like www.SoccerAssociation.com you would see this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ll coolio ggg (talk • contribs) 13:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC) sorry= --Ll coolio ggg (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Player currently playing in Greece for Ethnikos Piraeus at professional level. --ETH.P...4eva! (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Athlete does not meet notability per WP:ATHLETE. Fredrik • Wilhelm U|T|C 13:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just went on the website SoccerAssociation to check this out and the player actually is currently playing for Ethnikos Piraeus. On the players history page aswell he has played for the teams mentioned in the wikipedia page. --Boozzzzzboo11111 (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for that last comment now if everyone else would go on the professional site ive told them to then they would see the truith about the player. --Ll coolio ggg (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Im a member of the SoccerAssociation website and have been for quite some time, it is the best website in the world for looking for information on professional football players. On SoccerAssociation its has Mark Redshaw currently playing in Greece for Ethnikos Piraeus and also has the clubs he has played for in the past and the article about him on wikipedia matches the informaton on SoccerAssociation about the teams he has played for. --Bobby bbb66 (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also everyone who wants to keep this article I sergest you change it from save to keep!

  • Keep is currently a professional footballer playing in Greece. was a member of the Manchester United Academy and does have all the players information on the website www.soccerassciation.com. I agree with one of the other comments, it is a very good website one of the best for info on professional athletes in the world of football and clearly states the player is a professional and currently playing in Greece and the information on there matches that of this artical. --FFAS GOAL (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly per nom, I'd also like to advise to take down the link to the soccer association, as its obviously being used as spam since all the spas here are pumping it up like its the holy grail of soccer sites. ThemFromSpace 15:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. There is no evidence that player has ever played a professional match. He's on the books of Ethnikos (and even made the bench once) but has never played in the league. No sign he ever played in a fully pro league before. Jogurney (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok understand what one of last person who commented is saying but the website is the most reliable source on information of professional players which is the reason why Football Clubs, Scouts and Managers use the website themselfs and it clearly states whats leagues and where Mark Redshaw HAS and is CURRENTLY playing. --Ll coolio ggg (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The soccerassociation website is not a primary source, like EPAE (the Beta Ethniki's official website). There ought to be some primary source (either EPAE or a news report) showing he actually appeared in a league match for Ethnikos. He may in the future, but we shouldn't assume it per WP:CRYSTAL. Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the reference which you added and on the league table it is not up to date but thanks for clearing the fact that the player is a professional footballer currently playin For Ethnikos. --Ll coolio ggg (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's current through the 26th round (which was played from 14-16 March 2009. Do you have evidence that he played today? If not, he hasn't played for the club yet. Simply being on the books isn't enough. Jogurney (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I ment was it might say the dates but the points are wrong on the league and is not fully updated, check other websites on the league table like soccerway and you will see what points the teams are on and how the league table really stands, so thats what im saying about that so obviously all the players appearences wont be correct if the league table is not will it. --Ll coolio ggg (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any errors with the league table. It's correct through the 26th round. They obviously haven't updated for today's matches yet. Jogurney (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being serious it clearly shows the points what the clubs have are different. If you look on the website soccerway which is free to use so dont worry, you will see that the team at the top of the league PAS Giannina are on 58 points where on the site you added there on 57 points, also second placed team PAE APS Atromitos Athens are on 57 points and on the site you added there on 55 point so this shows that it is not up to date by maybe 2 games so you expect all players info and games to be up to date, please check carefully this time, thanks.--Ll coolio ggg (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're having trouble because the site uses Greek letters, but it clearly shows Atromitos with 57 points and PAS Giannina with 55 points, which is exactly correct as of the 26th round. Perhaps PAS won today, but like I said before they haven't updated for today's matches. This is all irrelevant as this is the league's official website, it is reliable and Redshaw had not played before today (I'm still waiting for someone to show he actually played today). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atromitos are on 58 points and second placed team PAS Giannina are on 57 points. like I said this is all irrelevant if you checked the website SoccerAssociation you would see this, the thing is your going against a web site that is designed for Professional Footballers information and like I keep repeating its what Professional clubs, scouts and Managers use but maybe you no better than these people. --Ll coolio ggg (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The EPAE.org website has been updated for this weekend's matches, and Redshaw did not play for Ethnikos (again). The article still fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. 12:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Redshaw was also playing professional football in Cyprus aswell so thats where Ethnikos Piraeus proberly seen him playing and what made them want to sign him for the club.--Bobby bbb66 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked the website SoccerAssociation again I have just seen that it was infact Ethnikos Assia the team Redshaw played for in Cyprus not Ethnikos Achna, but he scored is first goal for the club on the 27th September against Ermis FC Aradippou in the League.--Bobby bbb66 (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Cypriot Second Division is not fully pro (per early AfDs), so the article still fails WP:ATHLETE (and WP:N). Jogurney (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plays for Ethnikos Piraeus currently wears the number 9 shirt.--Deomoniared (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone here smell socks? MuZemike 00:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I thought it was too obvious to point out. ThemFromSpace 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad i wasn't the only one thinking that... Uksam88 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can actually come up wit ha reference supporting something of note. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. ManU time was youth only (as supported by evidence), Wrexham appears to be only youth, no senior appearances, ditto ManC, not entirely convinced he ever played anything at all for Triestina or Galaxy. Stirling Lions is amateur - appearances therefore not generally notable, ditto Ethnikos Assia. No evidence to date of actual appearance for Ethnikos Piraeus F.C. Recreate if and when.--ClubOranjeT 09:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ps. References in article are decidedly dodgy and don't support notability. Reference 1 is OK but only shows he is registered, not played, ref 2 only confirms amateur non-notable hattrick, ref 3 is a forum and therefore not WP:RS. Also agree with ThemFromSpace that soccerasscociation external link should be removed per WP:ELNO point 6 as it requires registration and payment to access data and have deleted. Have left inlines in place pending article deletion as aide to AfD, but in event article is kept, these plus various speculatives should be sanitised per WP policies.--ClubOranjeT 09:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My friend Ethnikos Assia is not a amature but professional club playing in Cyprus who are registered in a professional league, look at players playing in that league there are International players from all around Europe playing there. Like you said your not confinced but has everything on the website what people high up in the game use but like I keep saying maybe you know better than these people.--Ll coolio ggg (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep currently a professional footballer. I also agree that Cyprus is a good level of football and Ethnikos Assia is a professional club playing in a professional league and clearly states the league is professional so this for me means the artical should be kept on, regards.--FFAS GOAL (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Uksam88 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin – the accounts ETH.P...4eva!, Ll coolio ggg, Bobby bbb66, Boozzzzzboo11111, FFAS GOAL, Deomoniared, Touforevatomefor life, and W.a.f.c pie eaters have all been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, as confirmed by CheckUser. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ETH.P...4eva!/Archive. MuZemike 02:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, ETH.P...4eva! is not blocked, as users are allowed to operate one account. But I suppose I'm just being picky here... J.delanoygabsadds 23:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he plays at a professional level. As I said in the previous AfD, his non-league career doesn't get a mention in the article. He was on Wrexham's books as a youth player and played in the FA Youth Cup. See match report. It seems that he was a Manchester United trainee and did also join Manchester City as a trainee. After Manchester City, he played for clubs such as Radcliffe Borough[9], Caernarfon Town[10][11] and Rossendale United.[12] --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not appear to have made a first team appearance in a fully professional league (Cyprus is listed as not being a fully professional league here but if this is confirmed otherwise I will take a closer look). Camw (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness the article does mention non-league clubs and the 3 clubs you have mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.205.92 (talk • contribs)
I agree to some extent - they are not shown in the Infobox, nor in the "Career" section but under "Other information". --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cyprus is a professional level of football and is ranked in good position by FIFA in the FIFA league standings and also FIFA has it as a top level professional league. What I also dont understand is how you can have someone playing professional football but people still trying to get a artical taken off but then theres articles of players playing in non-league or Welsh leagues or other amature leagues for that matter who have never played at a high standard but it has articles of them on wikipedia, for me this means wikipedia totally contradicts itself and the rules they use.--Biggiemagic (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Above user's first ever edit
    • If you can point out other articles on players who have never played professionally, flag them up and they will most likely be nominated too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes my first edit because im a FIFA Licensed Agent and was made aware of this ridiculous situation. I would also be here for hours if I had to point out other articles as well.--Biggiemagic (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: I asked a checkuser, and he said that while it is possible that Biggiemagic could be the same person, it is not likely. However, they are probably connected in some way to the person who was socking. Just FYI. J.delanoygabsadds 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that not counted as meatpuppetry? – PeeJay 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I seriously don't think any competent admin will give much weight, if any, to the numerous keeps above upon closure. With that said, this AFD must be under a winter weather advisory. MuZemike 03:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Cyprus is not listed as having a fully professinal league as generally interpreted. With a total country population smaller than many cities, even if they did have a FPL it is unlikely to extend to the second division which is where Athnikos Assia are having recently been promoted from the 3rd division.--ClubOranjeT 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If Redshaw was a member of LA Galaxy at some point in time, it would be extremely easy to find to link to support that. It is quite clear that he was never a member of the Galaxy at any point in time. That blatant fabrication should call for the majority of this article to be deleted - with the exception of his employment by Ethnikos Piraeus, which I am aware of as I follow the team. (By the way, as to the discussion of whether the Cypriot league is fully professional or whatever, that's an absurd discussion - the Cypriot league is legitimate league, and its top clubs regularly compete in European competition - including this year's edition of the Champions League) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueblue14 (talk • contribs)
While I agree that the Cypriot 1st division is fully pro, Redshaw played in the 2nd division and earlier AfDs have determined that there are semi-pro or amateur clubs at that level. Jogurney (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that Cyprus League is a fully professional league and if the player has played in a league game there in 1st or 2nd division then should be kept. Also agree with other comments where they speak about the website soccerassociation, it is a website that has all information on players and proves where Redshaw has played in the past and is the same as the artical and has LA Galxy on his history but does also say he never played a game for LA Galaxy on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.126.132 (talk) 14:43, 24 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 Organ scholar. MBisanz talk 06:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of organ scholars at British universities and colleges[edit]

List of organ scholars at British universities and colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails to establish the notability of individuals which are listed (see also notability requirements for lists of people). Lists of people "should have Wikipedia articles" according to Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_people, and the article also fails to establish the criteria for inclusion. ColdmachineTalk 10:08, 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 delete. yandman 15:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software outsource[edit]

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

Article intends to be a step-by-step guide to outsourcing software. Nominating for deletion based on WP:NOTMANUAL. Radiant chains (talk) 09:43, 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 redirect to Yellow Warbler. yandman 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowbird[edit]

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

No evidence this Australian band is notable (Note: not to be confused with a US band of the same name on the Arbor Records label). Many of the claims appear to be unverifiable eg. the claim one of their song is being used by MTV, shows no sign of being proven [13]. One non-charting EP, nothing else to date. Google returning mostly wikimirrors, MySpace and blogs. JoannaMinogue (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, per nom. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 09:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, bordering on speedy. No album, no label, and even their name borrowed from a more notable band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect to Yellow Warbler that was in the history may be useful, maybe it should go back to that. The band is non notable and the original article here was a hoax so a delete may be in order. The current article should not remain. Redirect or Delete Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Duff, and replace with a redirect to the bird. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 24 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. per WP:SNOW; feel free to revert if you disagree with me (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal treatment in rodeo[edit]

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

    "This entire article is an instance of undue weight and needs to be deleted as a WP:COATRACK." (See article talk page on this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttermilk1950 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. This is a legitimate topic for which a lot of reliable sources could be found. The article may need to be written in a different tone to achieve NPOV, and some more information could be added about what the industry regards as attempts to improve animal welfare, but that's no reason to delete. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This article was started as a very biased article by the nominator, but once other editors started to weigh in and a more balanced article started to emerge, the article is nominated for deletion, I only can guess because it is not reflecting his/her specific bias any more. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've dumped a fair amount of energy into working with the original author of this article and I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet. (the user still owes me a donut) It's still possible a keeper can be dug out of what's there now... give it some time and see where things stand in a week or two. This (self) nomination is probably too early. ++Lar: t/c 07:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep First WP:NPOV issues are not a reason for deletion. The article is clearly not a coatrack, it sticks the subject and nothing else. Therefore the reasons for nomination appear unsound. --neon white talk 11:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per Kim van der Linde and Neon white's reasons. Article is in need of work to get the sourcing and content to Wiki standards. Bidgee (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep That's a very good article. If there's an WP:NPOV issue it must be addressed but certainly not by deleting the article. Laurent (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There's the makings of a decent article here. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge back to rodeo this is a well-written pov fork. Mystache (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is a notable topic in itself. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Presently NPOV, but redeemable. The topic deserves its own article. --David Iberri (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup– it seems like a valid spinout for its own article, not to mentioned reliably sourced. Some NPOV/questionable sourcing could be ironed out, but overall it seems OK for its own article. MuZemike 00:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but fix the NPOV issues and give it an encyclopedic tone. Appropriate spinoff from the rodeo article. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep With the work done on this, a Strong Keep. The topic describes a movement of organisations and individuals who oppose the continuation of this sport, which if you've ever hung out with vegetarians, you know is an active and notable movement (regardless of people's views of the rightness or wrongness). It would be unwieldy in the extreme to try an merge this back into Rodeo (currently at 38,494 bytes), and most of the organisations or individuals involved may not be individually notable enough for their own articles. Certainly, the reasons given in the nom carry no weight. Other reasons for deletion come up against the common weakness of a false presupposition that any article ABOUT people with a POV, MUST be POV itself. T L Miles (talk) 18:35, 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 redirect to Double-double (disambiguation). Xclamation point 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Double double coffee[edit]

    Double double coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:OR, provides no sources. May also fail WP:NOTE . — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 07:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom and WP:V.Oli OR Pyfan! 07:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete delete. Soft redirect to Wiktionary per S Marshall. Being a Canadian, I am quite familiar with the term and it is listed in the urban dictionary, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soft redirect to Wiktionary, surely. This plausible search term should not be a redlink, but dictionary definitions don't belong here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge & redir to coffee - worth a mention in the parent Article. Is a personal preference on how I like my coffee Notable... no, Dangit! Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 12:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Double-double (disambiguation) which already includes all this information. Pburka (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double double redirect – to the abovementioned dab page. Apparently the user has forgotten the basketball term of the same name. Plausible search term. MuZemike 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Objection. In the first place, WP:DAB clearly states that dictionary definitions are not welcome. Also, what are you planning to link the dab item to? Surely not Tim Hortons. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 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. yandman 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jake Brown (musician)[edit]

    Jake Brown (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This musician, who is probably writing his autobiography, lacks notability. Two of the external links are MySpace pages; one is for some company; and one is from a magazine that specialises in profiling MySpace bands. He'll have to break out of the MySpace world before being allowed here. Biruitorul Talk 06:59, 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. G11 Tone 14:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Mucciolo[edit]

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

    A prod on this article was removed without comment by the author (also the subject). This article seems to be a promotional autobiography that provides no references. In attempting to locate sources on Google to confirm notability (my search) I was unable to find anything that was written about him and not by him. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. — Oli OR Pyfan! 07:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Speedy delete, per nom & I42 — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 07:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete. Per nominator, most notably WP:AUTO. The article was tagged for speedy deletion but the author invalidly removed the tag. I42 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per nom. Fredrik • Wilhelm U|T|C 13:17, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 02:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Zed[edit]

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

    Clearly non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevinbell (talk • contribs) 05:38, March 21, 2009

    Deletion contested
    • The current entry is notable, has been referenced extensively, and is part of an entry into Wikimania 2009 as is referenced on the Wikimania 2009 site. Sevencraft (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that the entry concerns a wrestler and pro-wrestling journalist, which has been defined as notable by existing considerations on Wikipedia. (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are numerous less notable pro-wrestlers and pro-wrestling journalists who have not had articles deleted Sevencraft (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references section will be increased with at least a dozen more notable references. This is the first few days of the article. Sevencraft (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is notable because it refers to one of the few insider retrospectives of Pivot Legal Society, an advocate of the Insite heroin injection clinic, the sole clinic of its type in North America. Sevencraft (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete He doesn't appear to pass WP:N. I can't find any information from reliable sources on Google or Google News, and the simple fact that he wrote for a notable website doesn't make him notable. The World Intellectual Property Organization citation is just a report of legal proceedings so I don't think it establishes notability, especially since no independant media talked about it. Laurent (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you seek out all secondary links or simply rely on one search engine to pass judgement on the entry? Did you read through the entire legal entry on WIPO and do you have copies of the print decision? 'Doesn't appear to pass notability' applies in what context...are you a knowledgable about pro-wrestling? Sevencraft (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well if you know any reliable third party sources, feel free to provide them. I can't find any myself that's all I'm saying. I didn't read through the WIPO entry but again I don't see how this single entry could establish notability since the legal case doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the media. Laurent (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't suggest that one single entry of reference was alone enough to establish credibility. Taken as a whole... Sevencraft (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which country of origin are those who are arguing for deletion from and do they have an understanding of international political machinations? Sevencraft (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:CREATIVE. WIPO issue (WP:BLP1E if we're only relying on that), if it's significant enough, can be included elsewhere. Rd232 talk 14:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As testified by Vince McMahon in court, professional wrestlers are sports entertainers not athletes, so the above deletion link is inconsistent.
    • Delete per WP:N, WP:BIO. Ridiculous puffy vanity autobio of the sort that we (thankfully) don't see much of on Wikipedia anymore. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deletion considerations using loaded and insulting words should not be considered as valid. Sevencraft (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above two entries do nothing to invalidate the notability of said entry. They both concentrate on the validity of one link, the WIPO reference, without noting the other contributions. The fact is, there is references from print, web and traditional material found within the article, and not simply web-only links. Will strive to find and search additional references for those who simply read it for a moment without understanding national context. Again, what country are the posters who have voted for delete here from. Because I'm sure I can find 80% of your home country notables that have no validity in foreign context Sevencraft (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a bias in the inconsistent reporting above concerning assumptions that the contributor is in fact of the male gender,Sevencraft (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the article is part of a broader entry for Wikimania2009 so it is impossible to suggest that deleting the entry at least until additional references have been provided as to the nature of the entry have been corroborated. Sevencraft (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another reference of a notable nature has been added: From the YNOT News website Wikipedia and the Adult Industry: A Beginners Guide..."TORONTO - With Cybernet Expo a few short months away, it seems outrageous that in 2009, the adult industry has failed to form its own core users group on the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia. With that in mind, perhaps the most important task at hand for attendees this year is to get their heads out of the sand and begin the process of including an increased focus on Wikipedia and Wikimedia associated websites. If you've been under a rock for the last five years, Wikipedia is the world's largest encyclopedia - and good news for webmasters - it is both free to edit and uses open-source. Free as in beer and open-source as in a user-friendly version of PHP. That's a pretty sweet combination for any webmaster." Sevencraft (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not, in my opinion, meet WP:N. It is full of unsourced biographical material such as the claimed 2009 incident involving a panic attack and counterfeit watches and sometime reads like a press release. It also bothers me that the original editor, who is also the subject, seems to be creating source material such as the recently added Wikipedia and the Adult Industry: A Beginners Guide which is simply an editorial about Wikipedia. Wperdue (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
      • Will remove the panic attack information as per the editor's request.
    And how reliable is YNOT anyway? A website that publishes news just to get an article on Wikipedia, I would call that a questionable source. Laurent (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have removed the TTC information related to panic attack. Sevencraft (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The contributions of users here have been noted. The page will be reduced to a mcuh smaller footprint without all the extras despite the insistance of the subject that it remain the same. Will reduce and review the links but increase the references from major sites. Sevencraft (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Major Update

    • Over half the content of the page has been removed and the rest cleaned up. Sevencraft (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DELETE Still non-notable, still COI, still press release, still nonsensical in parts. Wiki entry about incoherent comments to someone's blog does not make one a journalist.Bevinbell (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Again, wrong, you have struck at this particular page for some reason I can't understand why. there are hundreds of pro-wrestler pages on Wikipedia and en entire portal. I will continue the edit but more than straight out duplicating the text of any number of a hundred other pro wrestlers is ridiculous. Pro wrestlers have notable contributions to Wikipedia.Sevencraft (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page has been cleaned up and now mirrors in content and tone that of other pro wrestlers and other adult industry journalists which are considered notable to Wikipedia.Sevencraft (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have satisfied the requirements for notablility and removed the sections in question. You will note, as have others who have submitted information to this page, that unless you are prepared to begin an entirely new direction and begin banning all pages by pro wrestlers and adult industry journalists, the criticim is simply misplaced. the page will receive minor edits as time goes on but I am preparing to add further references to the now reduced content to provide addition sources of notability Sevencraft (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. WP:BIO requires that the facts in the article be verifiable. The cited sources do not verify the facts in the article- in fact, none of the cited sources, as far as I can tell, is a article about Peter Zed from a reliable source. I was not able to find any articles about Peter Zed with my own google search, either. Of course, I have no objection to recreation of the article if and when somewhere, a few significant sources write about him in a significant way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I was not able to find any articles about Peter Zed with my own google search"... This is typical wikipedia gangbanging at its worst. Complaints were made about the page and it was edited... "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." There are two direct references on the page linking to articles from two different adult industry sources attributed to Peter Zed. More references will be added but the scope of complaints is not clear. Are those who are complaining here prepared to begin scouring all asult industry journalists and pro-wrestlers to destroy entries? — Sevencraft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Reply. I am sorry if my comment was confusing for you. Articles written by Peter Zed are not helpful sources; what's needed are significant articles about Peter Zed. As it is fairly clear that you are Peter Zed, you are the person most likely to know if such articles exist; if you have been profiled or interviewed in significant sources, it would be helpful if you would tell us where those sources are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Two more references have been added, one from Pro Wrestling Torch and one for Frank Magazine. Please do not make baseless accusations regarding whom is who. Are those that are prepared to delete this entry prepared to delete all pro wrestling journalist entries and adult industry journalist enties? Sevencraft (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I'm going to have to jump to FisherQueen's defense here. The "accusation" about Sevencraft and Peter Zed being the same person, I believe is entirely true. This article http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=ea_article&sid=49452 written by Peter Zed reads at the end "You can reach Zed with your questions at [email protected] or join him on WikiProject Adult industry". I'm not a detective, but it seems very coincidental that the current username of the editor pushing to keep this article and the stated email address of Peter Zed on the YNot entry are exactly the same. Wperdue (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
    • Reply. It certainly isn't an accusation; it isn't a crime or a bad thing to be Peter Zed. However, it's pretty obvious that you are him, for the reasons Wperdue mentioned and also because you're showing the characteristic editing pattern of a person who is writing about himself. It might be very useful that you are Peter Zed, because that means you probably know what newspapers and magazines have profiled you, and what books have been written about you. Or, if none have been written yet, you could simply say, "I'm afraid you're right that I don't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and save us all a little effort. I can't find the article about you at either of the links you mentioned; the Pro Wrestling Torch link doesn't appear to mention your name, nor does the Frank Magazine link, unless I'm looking in the wrong place. Certainly neither of them is an article that you are the subject of. It might help you to look at the reference section of our article on Dave Meltzer to see what a well-referenced article about a wrestling journalist looks like. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever! Sevencraft (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And on the 7th day God did striketh down the non believers and flood their lands with the waters of Noah. the sins of those who have transgressed against the freedom of the Jesuit people will forever be consigned to non digital television sets. A somewhat aborted attempt at bringing more information to the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit'Sevencraft (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a shared account with technically one user typing and one person looking over my shoulder. You should hear how pissed my partner is at this bailjob. Thanks for the introduction and looking forward to increasing more notable entries. Cheers. Go ahead and delete. Sevencraft (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So can anyone find the section of Wikipedia that states one account will not be used by two editors at the same geographic location or is this just going to be another wasted space? Sevencraft (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not appear to meet general notability guideline, and several of the sources do not appear to correspond to their citations. HeureusementIci (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but since the creator of the article asked for it to be deleted, doesn't that mean it can be handled by speedy deletion right away? 24.99.242.63 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could be, but since discussion is unanimous it's preferable to let it close as a consensus deletion rather than an author-requested deletion. It could also be closed as WP:SNOW at this point, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:37, 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. yandman 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Danny Roberts (Artist)[edit]

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

    Fails WP:Creative: self-published work and a single magazine cover illustration does not constitute notability. Also apparently an autobiography, as the main contributor has uploaded the images of artwork in the article as "own work". Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 05:27, 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 delete. yandman 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alfred Alexander Gockel[edit]

    Alfred Alexander Gockel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:Creative, perhaps autobiography. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 05:21, 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.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Dreher (fourth nomination)

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. yandman 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York)[edit]

    Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Completely unreferenced article created by sockpuppet of a banned user, thus eligible for speedy deletion under G5 (also is a recreation of an article speedy-deleted earlier), but speedy was denied on the basis that it "seems like a decent page". I agree that it seems decent, but the article's creator has a history of creating deceptive articles that seem OK, but are carefully disguised copvios or other forms of garbage. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neptune Island (Long Island Sound) (where I wrote a lot more in the way of reasons), if someone is willing to take responsibility for verifying the article and rendering it in their own words, that's fine, but keeping the current version because it looks like it might be OK is, in essence, saying that WP:V and WP:Ban have no significance. Orlady (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong keep This AfD is latest in running vendetta of Orlady against New Rochelle area articles. As Orlady notes, it "seems" decent. Notability is asserted, clear. Orlady is wasting my, others time with this pointless AfD, put in deliberately just in advance of my posting a community unban proposal for the allegedly banned user, who in fact is one of perhaps many misidentified by Orlady as being associates of one former wikipedia editor. This verges on wp:pointy. I am inclined to consider opening an RFC/User behavior on Orlady's actions here and elsewhere. doncram (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Lack of references is no reason to delete an article. Every assertion in the article seems verifiable. I'll add some references. Pburka (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The primary reason for deleting the article is not the lack of references, but WP:BAN, a policy on Wikipedia. The article was created by a banned user. The total absence of verifiable content is an additional reason for requesting deletion, particularly in view of the fact that this banned user has a history of copyvio and falsifying sources. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If you have evidence of copyvio, please provide it. The content is pretty well all verifiable, referenced and non-controversial. If this is politically motivated, then please feel free to ignore my vote. I don't want to get involved in wikipolitics. Pburka (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The point is that this user was banned from Wikipedia after compiling an extensive portfolio of disruptive actions. Consistent with Wikipedia policy on enforcing community bans by reverting edits, this means that his/her contributions are no longer welcome here (with the exception of obviously reasonable edits, such as spelling corrections). In the case of a banned user, it should not be necessary to comb through this user's articles line by line to determine whether there might possibly be salvageable content in them; as the policy states, "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." The only "politics" this is motivated by is Wikipedia policy. As for the statement that the content is "pretty well all verifiable and referenced," the only content that is sourced is the list of famous burials, and most entries on the list are sourced only to the non-WP:RS findagrave website. There are no sources provided for most of the article, such as the factual information in the sentence that says "It was started in 1858 and is one of the oldest Catholic cemeteries in New York state." --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks and congratulations to Pburka for finding a good source on the founding of the cemetery, correcting the date of founding from 1858 to 1886, and eliminating the incorrect statement that said this is "one of the oldest Catholic cemeteries." Those content errors are typical of the problems I have found in articles by various of Jvolkblum's hundreds of sockpuppets, and that have caused me to become so emphatic that these articles must be deleted (in accordance with the policy WP:BAN) unless someone is willing to take responsibility for rewriting them after verifying all of the contents. --Orlady (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudos to Pburka for helping with this article!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.191.221.194 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that sources do exist that list 1858 as the date HSC was established example. Additionally, the article provided by Pburka states that the cemetery is "one of the oldest burial grounds in Westchester" doc.. Clearly these are honest mistakes rather than intentional fabrications on the part of the articles creator. --88.191.221.194 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. I'd noticed the ambiguity about the date, too. The most reliable source I could find was the one for 1886. Pburka (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw request for deletion. Article has been rescued, largely by the efforts of Pburka. (Additionally, I deleted a couple of sentences that were still unsourced.) --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 23 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. yandman 15:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chase Meridian[edit]

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

    One time character created for movie Batman Forever and has not featured in any comics/films since. Not notable enough to be part of popular culture. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    May I ask why? Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect. Reasonable search time. No need to an AFD. Pburka (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect back to Batman Forever. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep major figure in an important version, though not exactly canonical. DGG (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore redirect to Batman Forever. --EEMIV (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as a RS'ed character, played by a notable actress, in a major motion picture. DGG, I've got to disagree with you on the canonicity bit--the fact that this character is absent from other incarnations of the story is irrelevant: this character, in this film, stands or falls based on her own notability, not as part of some elaborate mythos. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... and see Google News for additional sources which would be suitable to add to the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In regards to what you said about "a RS'ed character, played by a notable actress, in a major motion picture." I respectfully disagree, that criteria would allow an article for every character a famous actor has portrayed in any big film. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many of the sources found on Google News are just reviews of the movie Batman Forever. There does not appear to be that much to say about this character beyond a reiteration of the plot of the movie in which she appears. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge casting section with Batman Forever. One-time characters rarely ever need a separate article, and the current article state doesn't justify a stand-alone article either (WP:SPINOUT). – sgeureka t•c 11:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge casting per Sgeureka - everything else is plot. Artw (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and improve. Nice start. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A notable character in a major film. The first love interest of Batman shown in a movie, that wasn't originally in a comic book. That also makes her notable. Dream Focus 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I respectfully disagree, I don't think being the first love interest in a Batman film, not to have originated from the comics, makes this character notable. Can you find some sources where perhaps some critics or film-buffs might agree with you. Now I think of it, Rachel Dawes (from the last 2 Batman films) is also an original creation, thus diluting the claim further, I believe. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: You may all be interested in this, List of Batman supporting characters#Love interests, I didn't know it existed. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:56, 24 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. A5 Tone 11:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Constrained optimization and Lagrange multipliers[edit]

    Constrained optimization and Lagrange multipliers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Moved to wikibooks

    This article has just been transwikied to wikibooks:Calculus optimization methods – and in fact as the history shows, it was nominated to be moved to WB from the 2nd edit, as it is clearly textbook material (“How to do constrained optimization via Lagrange multipliers”), not encyclopedic.

    The content has not been removed, and the WB page is listed at the encyclopedic entry, Lagrange multipliers, and all other links to the page are “List” or “Cleanup”, so I don’t think that there is any need for a soft redirect, and the page should simply be deleted.

    Does this seem reasonable? (This is my first AfD – is this the right approach?)

    —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:29, 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 delete. yandman 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sonic the Hedgehog Harder Levels[edit]

    Sonic the Hedgehog Harder Levels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable "hack" of a popular video game; nothing about this can even be merged to the actual article. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Non notable indie remake. smooth0707 (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and Smooth. Oli OR Pyfan! 05:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No information worth merging. Mostly just a promotion for this hack. Radiant chains (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – It's basically similar to what is on their website. I agree with the above that this may be an attempt at promotion, but in any case the complete lack of established notability is damning enough. Don't get me wrong, however; I love some of the ROM hacks out there (especially the wonderful hacks of Mega Man 2) and would definitely give this one a try. But is this suitable for Wikipedia? In my opinion, no. MuZemike 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as notable as all the other ROM hacks... not notable at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:08, 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 delete. yandman 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of New Zealand songs by year[edit]

    List of New Zealand songs by year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    New list of "notable" songs from New Zealand, sorted by year. Several of the songs, though, aren't on Wikipedia, and a few don't even have artists on Wikipedia.

    The page itself is a very specific list that is only relevant to a small, limited audience, and qualifies as WP:LISTCRUFT. If the songs are on Wikipedia, they could possibly be included in a new category called "New Zealand songs from year", but this list is superfluous. KhalfaniKhaldun 02:59, 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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay de pellette[edit]

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

    Article has no sources, and researching the subject leads me to believe that it may very well be a hoax. He doesn't have an IMDB listing. I couldn't find him in any list of nominees for the Laurence Olivier Awards. He claims that his single entered the UK singles chart at #1, but it can't be found either. Anyone have better luck than me finding sources? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per nom. Could not find ant info in a Google search. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete No luck with sources. Hoax? Vartanza (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He is a famous Scottish actor I have seen him in several BBC programmes and he has been in alot of plays, he is also on IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.77.244 (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How can you guys not know Jay De Pellette he is like one of the most famous people in Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.77.244 (talk) 14:18, 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 speedy delete. WP:NOT a bureaucracy yandman 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    St. Thomas of Villanova Church[edit]

    St. Thomas of Villanova Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I am bringing this directly to AfD, contrary to my usual practice, not because I have doubts about whether this article should be deleted (it certainly should), but rather to clarify the application of CSD A7 with regard to churches. This article is entirely about the community and has nothing about the building which the group uses as a church. (It should be noted that many languages, for example German, use a different word to refer to the community than the one they use to refer to the building.) I say {{db-group}} applies to church congregations.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question: Does anyone know how or whether criterion A7 has normally applied to churches in en-Wiki? Majoreditor (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't quote me on this, I may be wrong, I would think that {{db-group}} would encompass churches because a church is basically just a gathering of people. As to whether a7 has normally applied to churches, I don't know. Oli OR Pyfan! 07:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen it applied to churches rather routinely when the article is about the congregation. When the article is about the building, that's another matter entirely. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The article doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin. If, as expected, this article is closed as delete, I request that the deletion be delayed, since I just started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion about situations like this, and took this article as an example of what I am talking about. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be better to keep a temporary copy in your userspace as an example if and when this article is deleted. We try not to keep stuff like this in the mainspace for very long. Chillum 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete I believe that Admin SoWhy was incorrect in declining the CSD A7 as this article is about a group of people that does not make an assertion of significance. Chillum 20:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It fails to meet notability criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that it mentions a street location, I think this article really needs to be treated as relating to both the church building itself and its congregation. I don't think an A7 (group) deletion would have been necessarily wrong, but it's certainly not clear cut. Nonetheless, there is no evidence of notability and no coverage in reliable sources, making delete the obvious outcome here. ~ mazca t|c 21:55, 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. obvious enough to fall under Vandalism. DGG (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Transnuclear biology[edit]

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

    Hoax and patent nonsense (For example, Linus Torvalds is the creator of Linux). The creator also vandalized his own article. Bio and Phys projects have been contacted. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete this load of WP:BOLLOCKS. Hoax, nonsense, why are we troubling Bio and Phys?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Hoax (or, if I wanted to be nice about it, "Fails WP:V," since the term gets zero Google Web, Scholar, or Books hits apart from this article). Deor (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete G3 - blatant and obvious hoax. The creator of Linux collaborating with a high school student to research how nuclear radiation transmits evolution? Enough said. ~ mazca t|c 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete Obvious hoax/ random nonsense, probably to confuse people into thinking it is real. The refs are probably fake also. Acebulf (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The refs are all to random high-school science textbooks. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pedantic comment The Sakurai is a nice little college/graduate textbook. Nothing to do with transnuclear biology, mind you, but it does explain the proper use of the term canonical commutation (hint: not like that). - Eldereft (cont.) 03:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete blatant nonsense. JocK (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, Snow. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as vandalism. (Obvious hoaxes are vandalism.) So tagged. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as a hoax. Majoreditor (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No hits at Google/News/Scholar? And last I knew, Linus hadn't crossed over into the biology field. Yup, hoax. Speedy delete. Matt (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You actually took the time to google this? Clearly a hoax....wait...why am I even taking the time to write this? smooth0707 (talk) 04:38, 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 delete. yandman 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ElectrowaveZ (Band)[edit]

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

    Could not find sources to establish notability of band. Charlie shaabi has been speedied once, Charlie Shaabie is under AFD. tedder (talk) 01:15, 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 delete. Xclamation point 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Data center automation[edit]

    Data center automation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article was recently prod'd (by an editor other than me) with a description of "This appears to be using wikipedia as a forum for publishing an essay with the author's thoughts and opinions on the subject. It would be appropriate for a blog article somewhere, but not for wikipedia. Seems to violate WP:NOTAFORUM ("1. Primary (original) research"; "3. Personal essays") and the point of WP:NOTOPINION ("2. Opinion pieces," albeit not "on current affairs or politics")." The initial author of the article removed the prod, so I'm moving it to AFD. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - all of the issues can be addressed through editting, in particular the claim that there are no sources. Certainly the current article contains no sources, but the topic of data centre automation is a big one with a lot of coverage in the IT trade magazines. [14], and [15] are just a couple of examples. -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - I've removed the resource section as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category for Business continuity and disaster recovery doesn't appear to apply to the non-Dana aspect of the topic Tedickey (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur that the subject is sufficiently notable to have an article, but the article in its present form is just an opinion-laden essay. It needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt, not merely edited. TJRC (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. The article could easily be stubbed down to the first paragraph as a quick way to excise the essay material. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's close enough to burning it to the ground that I admit I must agree. TJRC (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would seem that if it were stub'd, like you suggest, then it should also be merged with Data center, until such time as it warrants its own Article. When it eventually needs a WP:spinout then there is less likelihood of WP:OR. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right so for now it's still delete. -- samj inout 12:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A merge is not a delete. A merge transfers appropriate material to another article leaving behind a redirect from the merge activity. -- Whpq (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But if none of the existing material is sourced, which parts are suitable for being transferred to another article? Tedickey (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just pointing out that [[User:SamJohnston|samj]'s conclusion of "delete" when the discussion veered to merge didn't make sense. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Just to be clear, I still maintain the article should be kept as all the identified issues are ones that can be handled through editting. We do have article cleanup tags such as {{originalresearch}} and {{unreferenced}} to identify the need for cleanup which is recommended as per WP:BEFORE prior to taking an article to AFD. And I'll also note that no article improvement tags aside from an {{orphan}} have ever been applied. Even a casual search will show that there is plenty of coverage about this topic in trade press. So I don't see how this topic can be non-notable when it meets the general notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This added more tags, but was removed by Dana Tedickey (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed that. Thanks for adding them back to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But at this point I would have to at least ask the larger question, Does the Automation of any industry warrant a separate article? Or should it be a section of the Parent? What makes the Automation of this industry Notable? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:36, 26 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 MTV Philippines. MBisanz talk 02:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MTV Gimme 10[edit]

    MTV Gimme 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a non-notable chart apparently compiled from text votes rather than record sales or airplay. WP:CHARTS regards such charts as generally bad. The article is sourced from non-RS sources, has little information about the chart itself and most of the article is just chart data. I did suggest merging this article to MTV Philippines but there has been no interest at all in doing this (either for or against). This would seem to suggest that even the people interested in MTV Philippines do not care about it. It certainly is not notable enough to survive as an article in its own right so I favour deleting it and/or redirecting it to MTV Philippines. DanielRigal (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge and Redirect to MTV Philippines; insufficiently notable on its own. JJL (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The WP:BADCHARTS list shows that charts formed by viewer feedback via texts and phone calls usually aren't allowed, and this seems to meet that standard. Nate • (chatter) 07:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: non-notable chart. May qualify as WP:BADCHARTS. JamesBurns (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: If this is a TV program, I think this can be kept or merge with MTV Philippines. –Howard the Duck 16:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: That is why I initially suggested a merge. It seemed that nobody was interested. I don't think we need a full merge with all of the chart data (which is not sourced from RS) but I have no objection to the introduction (which is only a single sentence anyway) being merged. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:22, 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 Restored dab. yandman 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Third Time Lucky[edit]

    Third Time Lucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Vanity of vanities. A company with two "no budget films that star local, unknown teen actors" in production. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Not notable, but at least they're somewhat honest and very hopeful. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Notability grounds. The page should return to being a disambig for the two films of the same name Third Time Lucky (1948 film) and Third Time Lucky (1930 film) Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Almost as bad as speculative articals about movies and music that might or might not be produced, this company has no finished projects and those that are "in the works" are not in solid production anyway. Maybe in the future they will become "notable", but right now it seems like some high school kids garage project. Proxy User (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete A7/group. The article even confirms its own utter non-notability, which is refreshingly honest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed vote to restore Lord Cornwallis's original dab page (didn't see that at first). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore back to original dab page, [16].  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverse chain letter[edit]

    Reverse chain letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Googling suggests that this fails to meet both the notability and verifiability criteria. The Anome (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete smells like WP:OR to me. --Numyht (talk) 18:13, 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, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this is a WP:SYNTH of Internet chain mail advice, I think. No evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 00:36, 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 redirect to Mario Vazquez. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One Shot (song)[edit]

    One Shot (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No evidence of notability for this single. Did not chart [17]. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs TheClashFan (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment according to the Mario Vazquez article, this song "by early March was hovering around #58 on Mediabase 24/7's CHR/Pop chart", so it's apparently not quite accurate to say it didn't chart at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I've done a search on the internet and cannot find where MediaBase lists their charts from this period. It hasn't charted on the IFPI or chartstats site either. I should note the main article doesn't link reference where they obtained the chart position from, making it impossible to verify the claim. (On another note the wikipedia article on Mediabase contains a dead link to their main page). TheClashFan (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to artist. Mediabase doesn't have archives of its charts, so its position would be impossible to verify. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to album, Mario Vazquez (album), since the song fails WP:MUSIC. Aspects (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Topper's Pizza (American restaurant)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Topper's Pizza (American restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Only trivial coverage found, such as events at local branches. Only other sources I could find are franchise directories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoever placed the "if you came here" box on this discussion, please remove it. The device is appropriate only where it appears that there actually is a discussion with multiple participants, and should never be used pre-emptively. Thank you. Mandsford (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:N as it hasn't recieved the attention of the greater media or publishing world. ThemFromSpace 14:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - It appears to me that it passes WP:ORG. My Google search turned up an article about the company in Food and Drink magazine, which I added to the article as a reference. That plus the article in the "State News" (apparently in Lansing, Michigan) makes two solid third-party sources, in addition to articles in campus newspapers such as the Badger Herald. --Orlady (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable. Notability requires multiple, reliable sources about the subject itself rather than throw away, marginal articles about store openings and the like. The Food and Drink article, as a trade publication, is borderline, but after that it's a real struggle to find anything substantial. The State News article is no more nor less than any new business is likely to get as a write up in a small town newspaper. If this chain is notable then the bar on notability is so low that we may as well not bother worrying about notability at all. AngoraFish 木 11:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete 20 locations is rather borderline to me. It's not some dude's hot-dog stand, but it's also not a reasonably well-known or recognisable brand, even regionally. Unlikely to become part of any historic record (even within its business niche), no innovations, no unique aspects, and just plain not much to say about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I ran across one search-results link (apparently more recent than the sources cited in the article, which are several months old) that said they had 23 locations, but I couldn't see the whole article to verify the info and the source. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't suprise me. If they're a franchise biz, they probably gain and lose locations fairly regularly, that's par for the course in franchising. Another location or two won't save this article. What would save it is some claim of cultural significance (Domino's Noid was popular enough to have a Nintendo game, Ray's Pizza is a New York institution), pioneering a unique business method (Chuck E Cheese's mechanical mostrosities or Cici's pizza buffet), particularly outstanding reception (first pizza place to earn a Michelin star?) or being a global colossus (Pizza Hut is a household word in some 100 countries). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree that the difference between 18, 20, 23, or 30 locations does not determine notability. I was merely adding a point of information. Since then, however, I expanded the article based on several additional sources. I have no personal experience with this chain, but from what I have read about it, I get the impression that it has an unusual marketing approach that is proving very successful, at least for now. --Orlady (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article from Food & Drink is sufficient to show notability--the equivalent of an award. Without it, I wouldn't have said keep. DGG (talk) 23:55, 25 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. DGG (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hide The Turkey[edit]

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

    Non-notable game yielding no relevant hits on Google News, Books, or Scholar; previously prodded, but an IP removed the tag. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I originally tagged this with a PROD. As I stated in the Prod there is no indication this is a notable game and I couldn't verify the material with reliable sources. --DFS454 (talk) 17:45, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 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, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a gsearch indicates to me that the game shown in the video was a on-off activity by one schoolteacher. I can't find evidence that this game is widespread or traditional, and none has been presented. JJL (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No evidence that this is widespread or has received media coverage (although I did find a disturbing number of references to "hide the turkey baster"). Pburka (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as as a non-notable, unverifiable game. Sure, there are probably a couple of elementary schools that play the "game" around thanksgiving time, but that doesn't mean it is worth an article. Tavix (talk) 23:31, 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 delete. I would have Speedy G11ed this, myself... Oh well. DELETED! Valley2city‽ 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Justrade[edit]

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

    There is a conflict of interest in this article, I prod'ed the article which the article creator has removed. The article is overly advertorial in nature, and I am failing to find sources which give the subject notability within an encyclopaedic context Russavia Dialogue 15:32, 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, 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 delete. Valley2city‽ 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Amdi Petersens Armé[edit]

    Amdi Petersens Armé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No sources given to back up the claim of popularity. Sources inserted by the deprodder are trivial and inadequate. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No sources given to back up the claim of popularity. Sources inserted by the deprodder are trivial and inadequate for further consideration - sorry.

    Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's a band from the Danish underground music scene, which has a small, but seemingly devoted fan crowd, loosely related to the small but highly visible anti-globalization, anti-autoritarian, anti-etc European activist movement that in Denmark gravitated around Ungdomshuset. I have checked the first couple of hundred Ghits, including the ones in Danish. Blogs and forums etc. that wont pass WP:V. Band certainly doesn't pass WP:BAND. I would perhaps advise the article creator to write a general article on the underground music scene in Copenhagen, giving passing mention to the band, with the caveat, that even such an article would face long-time survival difficulties on en.wikipedia, precisely because it's a minority fringe grouping, that will have inherent problems with WP:RS. Perhaps it would be better to let such an article incubate a while on the Danish Wikipedia, to test ground for consensus there first. But again, precisely because this subculture largely rejects regular society, it's an uphill struggle to have the subculture's artifacts mentioned in an Encyclopedia, which requires independent third-party coverage by regular society's media. For the same reason Blod Ser Mere Virkeligt Ud På Film, Gorilla Angreb and No Hope for the Kids should go. Hjertestop could perhaps stay, with more sources verifying the claim of EU touring. You should be very selective creating other articles from List of Danish punk bands. Sorry. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:34, 25 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. per result of AfD and removal of copyvio Valley2city‽ 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chitrananda Abeysekera[edit]

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

    Possible copyvio, since it says "This article was also published in "Swarnamali" Poetry Collection by Chitrananda Abeysekera in 1984." ViperSnake151 13:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Keep - Please close this AFD. The key diff is here: [19]. That note is a poorly-formatted reference saying that one of the poems in the list was published in multiple collections, NOT an indication that this article is a copyvio. Looking over the history, it appears to have been organically built by two contributors and not a copyvio. JRP (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Actually, there was a separate section which I missed which also claimed to be a reprint from another source. I've removed the whole section. There are enough formatting and terminology issues here that I could also be wrong about the citation above, BUT with the offending text gone I stand by my keep. JRP (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The quoted article by my friend seems to have been removed. User:HumanFrailty 03:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Copyvio gone. Article needs some pruning though. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I don't understand the relisting. This was nominated as a copyright violation, and the offending text was removed nine minutes after the nomination. Why are we still discussing this after nine days? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 25 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 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Navigrid[edit]

    Navigrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Isolate (puzzle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I think it'd need more than one paper and one puzzle-specific book to meet notability criteria. Multiple papers, included in books from multiple publishers, or something like that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 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 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep One paper and one puzzle-specific book for a game invented in 2006 would be enough for me. Article is factual and encyclopedic, I see no COI of concern. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With criteria for inclusion that low we would have probably 1,000 other puzzle types invented up by people who hoped to get free advertising here. Please take a look at what our notability requirements actually are before commenting on AFDs. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you aware of the recent megabytes of discussion at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation - it's a guideline, not a "requirement", and not policy; and opinion is divided, to say the least. Please point out to me the "free advertising" or just some promotion or canvassing - I think you grossly exaggerate the importance of having one out of two million Wikipedia articles, especially when the products have allready hit mainstream media, and in the case of Isolate, is published daily in one of the largest newspapers in the UK (The Daily Mail). Take also a look at WP:COI, it's WP:NPOV that is the main concern, not the COI per se, and I don't se NPOV problems in this article, but again, please point them out to me. Undisclosed COI is a serious potential problem, but again this is not the case with this editor, who reveals his interests. The diff you provide is an absolutely fair question, the editor merely asks, how to prove that e.g. Isolate is published daily, truly legit. What was your reply?. I wouldn't know how to lift this burden of proof, other than buy the paper myself. Regarding the 1000 puzzles, no problem, if they are mainstream media, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. Lastly, please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep These games have been published in multiple notable magazines/papers. I agree that inline citations should be added to these two articles, but this is an editorial issue (add/edit/improve), not an administrative (deletion) issue. Tothwolf (talk) 02:02, 26 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) 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingfisher Sky[edit]

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

    Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. While I did manage to find this, that was it. Not enough to pass WP:Music C1. Willing to change my vote if someone can dig up something else mind you. Keep per the ref's HexaChord dug up, and thanks for giving me a few more URL's for my music searches.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The only URL you'll need is Google, plus the right search terms. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 23:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 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 delete. Tone 14:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Max H. Larson[edit]

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

    Articles on other presidents of JW *branch offices* do not exist, and are not notable. Not the same as president of *international* Watchtower corporation. Jeffro77 (talk) 12:43, 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 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Maybe he's notable, but the article doesn't indicate it. --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    National Association of Retail Shipping Centers[edit]

    National Association of Retail Shipping Centers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Seems to be written like advertising for a while now. No sources, not encylopedic. Versus22 talk 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Note: I did both this + speedy because I wasn't too sure which one was more suitable. I'm sorry if I did this incorrectly. I don't nominate often. Versus22 talk 21:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as it stands, this Article is misnamed. http://narscinfo.com says it is an Alliance not an Association. With only 150 members [29] and even the website not saying why they are notable, there is nothing currently supporting the Article (RS's). "we will provide a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) lookup service" [30] that's about the extent of what they do as far as I can see, If they are doing that. Is that notable? I do not believe so. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Program Authority[edit]

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

    no sources; orphaned; non-notable   —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 11:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This nomination appears flawed to me. "No sources"—I see 76,000 google hits. "Orphaned"—not grounds for deletion. That leaves "non-notable". What steps has the nominator taken to comply with WP:BEFORE?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Presently unsourced, but I see clear potential for an article. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      on what basis would you create an article without violating WP:OR? Do you have some reliable source you haven't told us about?  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Asked for help User_talk:THF#Program_Authority_up_for_AfD here - Power.corrupts (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete without prejudice to recreation. Meh. I don't really know what one would say beyond a dictionary definition (and the dictionary definition in the article as it currently stands is far from precise; the term arises far more often in terms of whether control over funding should be in block grants to states, e.g., this passing mention). It's an orphan, so it's not like deleting this article wouldn't be instantly cauterizing. Perhaps someone could write a real article about this that wouldn't be better placed in whatever article we have about the federal budgeting process, and if WP:HEY happens now or later, I'll change my !vote, but I don't see the potential others are mentioning. If it sticks, the article should be moved to Program authority. THF (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 20:38, 25 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. Improved sufficiently tht the delete arguments are no longer persuasive DGG (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Zamboanga Golf and Country Club[edit]

    Zamboanga Golf and Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a copy of parts of Golf course. The name ("Zamboanga Golf and Country Club") would indicate the purpose of the article would be to advertise the given golf course. Bluemask (talk) 07:51, 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 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, since the article has from its inception contained only copyvio content—uncredited paste from another WP article, violating the GFDL. No prejudice against creation of a proper article at this title, as it looks as though the place has some claim to notability (oldest course in Philippines, founded by Black Jack Pershing). Deor (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've stripped out the irrelevant info and started a brief article on the actual subject matter. I suggest this AFD is closed and it's renominated if need be on other grounds. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep pruning and rewrite by AndrewRT saves it - good job. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AfterLogic XMail Server[edit]

    AfterLogic XMail Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Was up for PROD as a non-notable product. DePRODed without comment. No RS references. I am not seeing RS coverage in the first few pages of Google searching, just primary sources and download sites. DanielRigal (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: per nom as the editor who added the {{prod}} nomination, subsequently removed by article creator. Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - my search has the same result as nom's - I don't see notability. The author's talk page discloses an SPA account adding material about AfterLogic Corporation (deleted as spam), AfterLogic WebMail (also at AfD) and this product. User has been given a level 3 warning, and has not created any new article since. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 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 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable product also probably breaches WP:COI. Acebulf (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I get 13.700 Ghits for "AfterLogic XMail Server". Overwhelming majority are independent, and I see no reason to assume that the info on the page should not be factually correct, it is certainly verifiable by tech buffs. With the many hits, I assume that the product has such a penetration in the Linux (or whatever) community that a Wikipedia article is warrented. I see no promotion, advertising or spam. Maybe it's a WP:SPA, maybe the creator has WP:COI - and that should definitely have been disclosed by the editor - but I cannot see that this has influenced, skewed or tainted the article, factual as it is. I cannot see that own interest have been advanced at the detriment of the interests of Wikipedia. I'm likely a minority around here, but tag with refimprove and keep Power.corrupts (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The overwhelming majority of those ghits are certainly not independent - they are download sites. If you exclude the word "download" you get a more realistic 70 hits (i.e. 99.5% of the 13,700 are eliminated) and after looking through the list I can't find one independent reliable source amongst them. There's also nothing from Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 25 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 Bring Me the Horizon . MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oli Sykes[edit]

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

    Only notability is as a member of Bring Me the Horizon so a redirect would be more appropriate than an article. Also most of the article's content is unsourced and possibly unverifiable, and removing it would leave it as a coatrack for a non-notable incident. —Snigbrook 15:34, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 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 merge to Sally Spectra. MBisanz talk 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jackie M Designs[edit]

    Jackie M Designs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No real world information, references, media coverage, no notability outside the show. Creator just copied information from Spectra Fashions which was merged. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectra Fashions. (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • If I have this right, this is basically another name for the same organization as in the other AFD. If that one is merged, then this one should be too. Since the show isn't available you can't reliably cite episodes as sources. - Mgm|(talk) 12:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The editor who created just copied the merged material into a new article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 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 00:02, 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. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chamseddine[edit]

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

    Unreferenced permastub about a surname, but without any demonstration of notability. Can't find anything on Google, because there are enough random people with this name that a search reveals primarily Facebook and personal genealogy pages. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - searching found a couple of people who use this as alt spelling, have expanded page and made redirects. PamD (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Rename from Chamseddine to Shamsuddin. This is a disambiguation/redirect for the surname and Shamsuddin is more commonly used among asians. I think the page was misspelt at the outset Moneyprobs (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Power.corrupts (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep under one of the possible spellings as a valid disambiguation page, with redirects from other spellings. I don't think any one spelling can be called the correct one as most families with this name originate from cultures where the Latin alphabet is not used. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 25 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, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bianca Brigitte Bonomi[edit]

    Bianca Brigitte Bonomi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Potentially fails WP:BIO. Cited references appear to be examples of the subject's work rather than articles about the subject. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete really unimpressive IMDB entry: [33]. While she has interviewed some notable people, there are no sources which are actually about her. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Plenty by her, but unable to find any significant coverage of her in reliable sources. Maralia (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jasmine Gradwell[edit]

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

    I don't think the article meets WP:ATHLETE. I couldn't find a single online reference to support the article (if an Australian netballer is notable, online sources can be found quite readily); the two references in the article don't even mention her. Would've loved to have gone straight to CSD (A7), but there's arguably some attempt to indicate significance. It was tagged for CSD A7 not long after its creation, but the original author removed the tag and expanded the article. However, Jasmin gradwell was speedily deleted under A7, one day after Jasmine Gradwell was created. Wasn't sure which deletion process to use, so I decided to play it safe and list it here. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 02:48, 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]
    • Question: Is the "WA Smokefree State Netball League" a fully professional league? If not, I don't see how she could meet WP:ATHLETE. I agree with the nominator that coverage of this person seems pretty thin on the ground. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • Reply: No, the WA State Netball League is an entirely amateur state tournament. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, I would have to say that this article should be deleted, as she does not meet the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline, and she doesn't meet the general notability guideline either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:34, 19 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, 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 delete. Tone 11:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The New Answers Book[edit]

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

    Unnotable book created more than a year ago. BBiiis08 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Per above, just looks like a list of chapter titles.... --Pstanton (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- and if there isn't something on the list of speedy deletion criteria that cover this I'd be shocked, but since it's been lited a while speedy isn't an issue. DreamGuy (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for non-notability, lacking substantial discussion or reviews in reliable publications. (See, for instances, what Google News produces: nothing). Drmies (talk) 03:06, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pyrford Cricket Club[edit]

    Pyrford Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Village cricket club which fails cricket notability guidelines of having played in the Premier Division of one of the ECB Premier Leagues. Also fails WP:GNG of "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Prod was contested. Jpeeling (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Restating the points I made on the talk page:
    Cricket notablity guidelines state that the "Premier Division" guideline is just that, a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule. This side is notable for a) it's ground, b) it's long history and c) the renown of it's past players: Taibu, Butcher and - from a non cricket playing perspective - Colvile.
    There seems to be some agressive deleting of worthwhile articals on Wikipedia at present. We need to get away from this...
    I would humbly suggest that a more worthwhile use of Jpeeling's time would be editing/creating or improving articals rather than proposing deletions.
    Boatrace 16/3/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatrace (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with the points you make: a) I don't see what's particularly notable with regards the ground and that shouldn't have an impact on the notability of the club anyway. They are independent entities. Also the paragraph dealing with the ground is unsourced so shouldn't be the considered in a decision over notability. b) The history of a club is a fair point, but it should be for the events in that history not the mere length of it. 150 years isn't particularly long in cricketing terms, sticking just to the county of Surrey, Mitcham Cricket Club, Godalming Cricket Club, East Molesey Cricket Club and Chertsey Cricket Club all date back to the 18th century. c) Just as notability for players can't be gained by being associated with a notable club, the reverse should also be true. A club can't gain notability just because a notable player(s) played for them. They should gain it in their own right.

    Finally if you wish to discuss my edits may I suggest my talkpage not here. --Jpeeling (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - as JPeeling said, a few notable players does not make a notable club. Not enough reliable external sources.—MDCollins (talk) 11:25, 21 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, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Abraham Busset[edit]

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

    Well-sourced but Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. Fails notability guidelines. Propose userifying in case original user wants to continue to develop and find notability. tedder (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete and transwiki. Ottre 06:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Hold your horses, while I get someone to answer my question on |What Wikipedia is not about genealogical entries. I.e. why not allow genealogical entries? One of you could even make a stab at answering it. Sanpitch (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In the most practical terms, it's because there are six billion people out there, most of whom have never done anything to catch the attention of anyone outside their immediate social circle. There are countless billions more who are deceased and of little note to those outside their social circle. Having information on any of these billions of people, even if it's verifiable, wouldn't do a whole lot to improve the encyclopedia, except to an extremely narrow audience for each article, and would make it more difficult to maintain and navigate the encyclopedia as a whole. Genealogy information is ultimately of greater utility to those who care about it (and those who don't) if placed in a more specialized resource such as Wikipeople.--Father Goose (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 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. With the move, I think there is now consensus to keep. DGG (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Detpak[edit]

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

    The article was a bit spammy and tagged for speedy deletion as spam. I've tried to de-spamify. Some of the products this company produces are familiar to a large number of consumers, so there's at least an argument for notability. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice job despamming. I still don't see much notability, nor does it look like it will get any better. I found it very difficult to find a source that wasn't Detpak or someone who sells there product. I think they sponsor a barista competition. Dethlock99 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Detpak is a subsidiary of Detmold. Normally I'd recommend a merge bit there's nothing to merge to. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 20 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, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved and cited I moved it to Detmold per Whpq's comment and added a citation. Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm okay with a Detmold article. Detmold has articles written about it. Thanks to ChildofMidnight for doing teh editting. -- Whpq (talk) 18:45, 24 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, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Suryamukhi[edit]

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

    Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:05, 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 00:01, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sudbury Community Foundation[edit]

    Sudbury Community Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Tagged for speedy deletion as spam; I'm taking it to AfD because the creator mentioned the similarity to Vancouver Foundation; yes, they're similar, except that the Vancouver Foundation has $800M loonies and Sudbury's has $1.5M. Notifying WP:Canada. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment I found this Sudbury Star article about it, which could be enough to establish notability. There were this and this also in the search, but they only mention it in passing (so not usable for notability).--kelapstick (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, there's absolutely no rule about the size of bank account that a community foundation needs to possess before it can qualify for an article, so the fact that it has a smaller endowment than the Vancouver Foundation is irrelevant. The issue, as always, is sources, not how many loonies the organization controls. I'm neutral for the moment, but I will be revising that to a keep if suitable sources can be found before close. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 19 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, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. On the face of it, it appears to not meet WP:ORG, which suggests it is less likely to have enough reliable sources to create a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article. For such a recent creation, I would have tagged it for notability requesting better sourcing for a while but as it's come here already, I'll go along with the delete suggestion unless significant sources are found. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is a matter of having better sources, I will make changes to the page using secondary sources. This is not a problem. I will attempt to do so in the next couple of days. ChrisKN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.184.64 (talk) 18:51, 25 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. consensus seems clear after 9 days total & I myself see no real notability DGG (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nelson Carvajal[edit]

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

    Article fails to meet the notability guidelines set at WP:N. Contested prod. The only Google News hits[34] for "Nelson Carvajal" are for a Colombian teacher that was murdered. The only source for the article besides the subject's website is an iMDB entry, which with an IMDB Pro account, is just another self-published source. The acting roles are trivial and fail to meet the "significant roles" standard of WP:ENTERTAINER. The subjects filmmaking and writing fail to meet WP:CREATIVE. dissolvetalk 02:12, 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 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Does not meet WP:Creative. None of his roles in film or TV have been "significant roles". Untick (talk) 04:32, 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 delete. 9 days; consensus is clear to delete DGG (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Improving Enterprises[edit]

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

    Article only contains primary sources. Searching Google shows nothing besides a lot of false positives. News has nothing but press releases and false positives. I can find no significant (or any) coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:CORP. Atmoz (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom, who seems to have covered the bases. Rklear (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Alleged sources are a PR job on itself. Spam, basically. DreamGuy (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 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. Even with the conflict of interest and the spa shenanigans on the article's talk page, there appear to be non trivial mentions in multiple sources. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Modcloth[edit]

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

    Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Article creator has admitted COI. Rtphokie (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per above and notability concerns LetsdrinkTea 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep looks like notability concerns have been resolved with recent source additions. riffic (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - notability established through coverage in reliable sources, and two of those were already in the reference section when the nomination was made. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 20 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, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Howard Choi[edit]

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

    He doesn't seem to be notable physican.Who may require a article.Wp:Notable User:Yousaf465 (talk) 17:48, 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) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment "His awards include an American Medical Association Foundation National Leadership Award (2001) and the Foundation for PM&R New Investigator Award (2004)" according to MSMS website Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: I just restored some content that an IP had removed on 10 March. Apparently the subject is author of a handbook--that may change things (I was about to go delete here). I don't know if it makes a difference, but still. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep—StaticVision (talk) 15:08, 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]
    • Weak Delete unless it can be shown that the pocket handbook is a major resource. It's not in many libraries, but that isn't the least unusual for such books, which are meant for the individual physician, and not indicative [35]
    • Comment -- Amazon lists several medical books by a Dr Howard Choi. Anyone know if they are all by the the same guy? That handbook is 134 long. From the article I imagined it was about a tenth that size. Geo Swan (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added the AMA Award (and the other one) to his bio. However, the Leadership award is something distinct from their more notable AMA Scientific Achievement Award -- this one is awarded to students and the like, as explained here. So unfortunately it doesn't look like it alone satisfies the second criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." It'll have to be decided by the notability of his publications. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 19 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, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable, also fails WP:PROF. Some of the above comments appear to be ambivalent more or less due to the number of ghits Choi generates. In reality, while Choi clearly is a prolific producer of papers, manuals and the like he has virtually no genuine, reliable, third party coverage. There is nothing that I can find which would suggest that any of his output to date is sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. AngoraFish 木 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Awards and being author of popular handbook makes him notable. LK (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, awards do not make someone notable, per Wikipedia:PROF, only "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." nb the national leadership award is awarded to "20 students, 20 residents and fellows and 15 young physicians" each year. Similarly the Foundation for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is a relatively obscure foundation and award is a $10,000 grant. Most active biomedical researchers receive several such "awards" each year, usually for much larger amounts. Also, being author of an alleged "popular" handbook (how popular are you arguing it is, by the way?" I ask since the searches above are struggling to find it) would also not appear to be sufficient to comply with "academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institution". Handbooks are insanely common, they tend to summarize current thought rather than create new thought, and are thoroughly ephemeral unless you can provide sources that state otherwise. AngoraFish 木 21:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to repeat that this handbook is 134 pages long. That is book-length, IMO. Geo Swan (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just being a published author is not sufficient to establish notability, per WP:AUTHOR. The number of pages in a published work is irrelevant. AngoraFish 木 06:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I have that beat with my thesis, which was 149 pages long, but the page length of "published works" is irrelevant. It is their impact that is important for establishing notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, doesn't seem to have authored any important reviews in his subject, or made any strikingly novel and widely-important findings that were reported by secondary sources. Seems a highly competent and promising young scientist, but not an established leader in his field. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The American Medical Association awards are quite notable. I don't care how many people get the award each year, is a rather small amount compared to the number of people involved in the American medical field, and you have had to have done something notable by their standards to receive it. And if this other foundation is giving out a $10,000 award, then he must've done something worth getting noticed. An award from an unknown is meaningless, but not if it includes a check for ten thousand dollars! This isn't some guy deciding to print out certificates on his home computer and hand them out to people, obviously. Dream Focus 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep The handbook is , just barely, enough for notability. DGG (talk) 23:46, 25 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. I think that after 9 days total that consensus is clear. DGG (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Conrad Enterprise[edit]

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

    Corporation of no obvious notability. Possible speedy candidate, brought here due to disputed prod. Sources provided are minimal (at best). Unable to locate substantial coverage other than the company's own website. SummerPhD (talk) 20:06, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_21&oldid=1142644151"