Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 February 11 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. faithless (speak) 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60's-70's muscle cars[edit]

AfDs for this article:
60's-70's muscle cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be an essay Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as copyright violation of [1] pablohablo. 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hina (goddess). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ina (goddess)[edit]

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

Flagged as hoax, connected with Tuna (Polynesian mythology) which is also suspected as hoax (see WP:Articles for deletion/Tuna (Polynesian mythology)). I am not an expert on the subject but thought I'd open this up for debate here. KuyaBriBriTalk 23:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not a hoax. Has a brief entry on p.235 of Dictionary of Ancient Dieties by Turner and Coulter. Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete - seems a bit at odds with Hina (goddess). I cant find a WP:RS in the GHits to confirm the above noted Ref. Note to closer: If deleted, the Self Referencing Redirects that point to it, should also go. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hina (goddess). It's definately not a hoax, see this google books result, but reading those sources it would appear to be alternative name for the goddess Hina used on some islands in Polynesia. ascidian | talk-to-me 16:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per above. Hogvillian (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge maybe one sentence, per above. Move the rest to the talk page pending citation.Yobmod (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge what can be sourced to Hina (goddess). — neuro(talk) 08:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — neuro(talk) 08:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O'Brian White[edit]

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

Player is a new draftee who has not yet played a professional soccer game in any league in any country, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN JonBroxton (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as he appears to meet general notability, as stated below GiantSnowman 18:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

64.231.244.157 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)-->[reply]

    • Comment You really do get off on calling people names, don't you? Keep it up and I'll report you for abuse and have your IP address blocked. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note and Comment I've hidden the above comment that JonBroxton replied to as it constitutes a plain personal attack and doesn't add to the discussion. I am also unhappy about this AFD nomination but we should keep on topic — this is about the article's notability and personal insults are both pointless and unhelpful. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Personal attack retracted, and comment readded, however I would still like to point out the apparent personal vendetta some moderators seem to have against clearly notable people. 64.231.246.9 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... this continual "review" (read vendetta) of the players web pages is a waste of everyones time. We have gone over this previously. MVP NCAA soccer - - the soccer equivalent of football's Heisman Trophy, has played internationally for Jamaica at the U-20 level which in soccer is more highly regarded than the olympics which seems to be the bar for wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.51.216 (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no need to get upset about this AfD. The article fails WP:ATHLETE which is a bright-line test and so we fall to the general notability guidelines which are anything but bright-line tests. I agree that the sources listed by user:Nfitz appear to pass WP:N, but it's open to question and not a sign of a vendetta. Let's try to follow WP:AGF. Jogurney (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems notable enough. Hogvillian (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting the WP:GNG. Hopefully he will meet WP:Athlete in the future, but is not needed.Yobmod (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivaeo[edit]

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

This seems to be a quite subtle piece of spam. As the article states, Trivaeo is a word invented by the founder of Trivaeo Limited [6]. So it's a neologism that then advertises. pablohablo. 22:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable neologism & advert pablohablo. 22:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The methodology and approach were created prior to the company. I am a strong advocate of the approach as it brings the business process to a very common level which actually forces business leaders to see that the greater part of all process is the same and only minor adjustments are needed to successfully impliment a BPO solution or automate a business process. DMOSS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossdw (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms and WP:ADVERT - a look at Google confirms that this termis only in use in connection with this company and its products. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologism and sneaky advertising.Yobmod (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No doubt it's a neologism. The word's creator left me an interesting message. He fails to realise that the "valid approach" is irrelevant - he hasn't managed to make the word notable. That is, almost no-one's using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoaxes are vandalism. The article was about a mutated leech with crustacean legs. The macacalbius was discovered in the Argentinian Pampa plains in the year 1957, by the zoologist Juan Carlos Ciappina, who assumed it was a mutation of the Hirudinea Medicinalis, provoqued by an asteroid with a high radon content. I got a chuckle out of it, anyways. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macacalbius[edit]

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

This seems to be a hoax. It first appeared on Spanish Wikipedia on 6 Feb; what is essentially the present text, in Spanish, was input by their user "Esteban Ruquet". The same evening Ppi755 (talk · contribs) translated it into English, input it here, and added links between the two versions. On 8 Feb, Ppi755 added the image to both versions.

Ppi755 (who has no other contributions either on :es or here) says that the image is his own work. It is entitled "Picture of a macacalbius on a weasel`s back." If the macacalbius is 30 cm. long, that must be a very large weasel.

But if Ppi755 is a hoaxer, there are also problems with Esteban Ruquet's text: it is not clear in his final version whether the binomial species name is Hirudo macacalbis or Hybris macacalbi, but Google Scholar knows nothing of either, nor of the zoologists Juan Carlos Ciappina or Pepe Songoltea. In the taxobox the binomial name is attributed to "Linnaeus, 1770", though the species is supposed to have been discovered in 1957. Also, I doubt that any professional zoologist could seriously propose that a newly discovered species was a mutation caused by "an asteroid with a high radon content," and I think that to talk of a species being "in evolutionary terms... three hundred years old at the most" is nonsense. These are not translation errors : they are in the Spanish text.

PROD removed, and "hoax" tag removed twice, by an IP.

Conclusion: at least partially a hoax, certainly unverifiable. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. JohnCD, after commendable research, has stated eloquently what I originally stated bluntly, before my PROD tag was removed: The article is a hoax: fake-looking image, "hides his face", annelids have no legs, "montun" (non-existent victim), Ciappina is not a known scientist, Pepe Songoltea is utterly unknown, "asteroid with a high radon content"
Need we go on? Chris the speller (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joyce Mercer only; DGG has suggested some possible claims to notability for others, and in any case multiple AfDs tend to be confusing to judge consensus anyhow, so we'd rather you didn't :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Mercer[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:PROF. Has been prodded twice; both times the creator has deleted the prod, claiming notability of the subject. The creator has been creating numerous articles about faculty at the Virginia Theological Seminary. User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markham is President of the school and thus meets WP:PROF. He's also published 7 major books
Cook holds a named chair, and is the author of 8 books, including a choice outstanding book. Meets WP:PROF.
Pritchard holds a named chair and is author of 5 or 6 books
Roberts may be notable as a musician.
Sedgwick also holds a named chair and published a half-dozen books
the others are in my opinion probably not notable, but I'm just going by the articles and their posted CVs without checking citations & non-academic notability. DGG (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and split some out, then. Roberts included; I'm not convinced of his notability, but I'm sure I can be persuaded... --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And here they are:
--User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To keep things straight, I gather that you are withdrawing the AfDs on Ian Markham, Stephen Lloyd Cook , The Rev. Dr. Robert Prichard and Timothy F. Sedgwick, so this is now the AfD for Joyce Mercer alone, with the others moved individually to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 11. DGG (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right - I thought it best to do it that way. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 05:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Runnymede Yellow Jumper[edit]

The Runnymede Yellow Jumper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not think that this jumper meets the general notability guideline. I have not been able to find any reliable sources that discuss the jumper or even mention it in passing. Searching Google, Google news and Google books turns up nothing that could be used for verification. Guest9999 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously a joke - speedy-delete it. - DavidWBrooks 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - absolutely non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless there's a planned category for roadside detritus pablohablo. 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. —Snigbrook 22:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It wasn't there when I looked earlier today. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you pull over? pablohablo. 12:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to, but I felt the traffic queue might unravel. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DavidWBrooks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obviously, but kudos to the nominator for bothering to look in Google news and even Google books for sources on an obvious joke article about a random piece of dirty clothing someone saw at the side of the road :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of the recent UK weather, might we snowball this? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable jumper. (christ, did I just say that?) — neuro(talk) 08:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I may have to change my mind if this is a religious relic to do with Christ! All such relics must be preserved and venerated. Your comment has obviously been inspired by a higher power. Or perhaps this is the start of the Eschaton! -- Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I wondered where I left it. Will pick up tomorrow. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip episodes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4AM Miracle[edit]

4AM Miracle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable idiom. Studio 60 episode is catered for in List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip episodes. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the episode list as a plausible search term for the episode. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mgm fuzzy510 (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mgm, doesn't cause any harm. Also don't think it helps anyone, but maybe one person will search for it one day.Yobmod (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow delete. Author blocked as a spam/promotion-only account. Blueboy96 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Moon New Enter The Moon[edit]

Harvest Moon New Enter The Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable references, article is Engrish, and possible hoax game. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion G4 of recreated material only applies to material deleted through AFD. This article was speedy deleted, so it doesn't apply. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of California Students Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:
University of California Students Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable third party sources to establish notability. This article has been tagged as problematic since March 2008, without any improvement. There's really nothing worth merging here. -AndTheElectricMayhem (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —AndTheElectricMayhem (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a student organisations which represent what is in practice the major division of a university. Its a long-standing organized body where much of the life of the university takes place. The main student organization of a major university is notableDGG (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But, notability is not inherited. Simply because something is a "major" part of something else, doesn't mean that it is notable. Notability must be established by non-trivial coverage coverage in reliable independent sources. This article doesn't satisfy this guideline.--AndTheElectricMayhem (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would apply to practically all official student associations/unions (Br). So are they all notable and deserve their own article, or should they be merged into the university's article? Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How much reliable source coverage do those associations get? If they draw as much public notice as the UCSA does, then articles on them would be presumptively justified. For what it's worth (not much), one has only to look at Category:United States student societies or Category:Collegiate secret societies to find a great many articles on student groups that are less notable than the politically influential student organization of one of America's largest university systems. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you're saying it's per case and this one happens to be esp notable. Ddawkins73 (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think articles at state level student Accs are usually likely to be notable, and this one seems to be. Such articles for individual institutes would not be though.Yobmod (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Separate, well-known, notable topic. Needs expansion (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game (simulation)[edit]

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

Delete. Partly original research and not notable in any case; adds no value. Replicates a dubious section in Game and, to prevent a possible edit war over the redirect which should apply, it is best to just delete this. Orrelly Man (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid well-defined topic. It is a stub. How the heck it can be original research in 2 sentences with two references? To tag as original researct the phrase that "games of nursing, hunting and warring exist even in modern times" is quite ridiculous. Have anyone of you been a child lately? Or all children today only play wii? I guess 85% of world child population not. Of course, I will find a citation or even a dozen of them. As for "adds no value", it is just because this Orlly Man laborously copied my article into his favorite one, and now lo! I created no value!! Very nice. Or not. - 7-bubёn >t 22:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now . As the tag on the article states, it is currently undergoing major revamping, so maybe should wait until they have finished that before we pass any judgements.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it always happens so for a neglected topic. Nobody cares, until suddenly whamm!! "This is bullshit to be deleted". Can people learn to use google after all this long years of computer literacy? I am far cry from being expert in simulation games, but I have to waste my time just because someone thinks that the topic covered by multiple international associations does not exist. Well forget it. I am removing "underconstruction" tag. Do whatever you want. If the whole wide wikipedia will not care, not my freaking business to interfere more than I already did. - 7-bubёn >t 23:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The subject is highly notable and the nominator seems to have a merger/redirect in mind. This nomination adds no value to the proper process for this described at WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable topic. Should have a better title, some of which already exist as redirect to this article, such as Sim game. Just needs checking that it is not redundant to an article with another name. Numerous sources exist discussing this game genre.Yobmod (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should not be confused with simulation videogames, which now dominate google, although simulation games predate computers. Slangish term Sim game must probably redirect to the videogame. - 7-bubёn >t 17:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So this is for simulations games that are not computer based? I think in the UK we would just say "pretend" or "play act". Might be better at a title that included education or learning? Yobmod (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope and nope. Did you actually read the article? I repeat, there is a wealth of material on the subject, I simply have to time and experience in the domain to digest it and produce a reasonable overview. If experts are not willing to contribute here, let it sit as a pitiful stub as a token of scorn towards them. - 7-bubёn >t 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it's clear: "The root of this meaning..." Surely 'concept'? The idea of playing simulation/roleplaying games comes from pre-history. Not the meaning. 'Activity' is better. Changed it anyhow. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Palermo[edit]

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

There are many Anthony Palermos, but despite the claims in the article (and the 'revamp' tag) I can't find anything notable about this one.    SIS  21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Author created two different versions of the article (casing variation), one of which I tagged for CSD. The only claim to notability here is his "alliance", which is allegedly linked to from a notable website. That in and of itself could possibly establish notability for the organization, but certainly not for the person. Even so, a cursory GSearch returns nothing of particular value. The rest is just unverifiable autobiographical content. §FreeRangeFrog 21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources to support any claim of notability in this autobiography. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Terran Atheist Alliance does exist, at least in the form of a website incorporating a forum operating since at least October 2008. I'd be happier to see outside reliable references rather than the collection given. (The Richard Dawkins one is a 'list your org' section.) Peridon (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page is still undergoing construction. I was unaware of the strict time frame given to actually finish a page. Some references are still being sought. Sir towlie (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about a time frame, it's about notability.    SIS  21:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't actually a time limit - unless your article gets tagged. What this means is that someone doubts that it will ever be suitable. It's best to get your notability established quickly and then fill in afterwards. To contest this proposed deletion successfully, you need to show at least a certain notability that seems currently lacking. Reliable outside reference. That's what you need. Myspace and anything self-published, the National Enquirer, The Sun - no. Other people referring to you - in reliable places, yes. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding the Pace Senza Dio thing, it's an alternative community (not mainstream) that the music is played to. There's certainly notability from what I saw when I attended the debut. The photography is also featured in this alternative community and prints have been sold and displayed. I'm not sure notability should only include information that has been published on the Internet. To my knowledge when a work is displayed in a gallery or a song is debuted at an alternative club it's not going to automatically have a news page dedicated to it. Sir towlie (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia likes things that are verifiable. Internet from reliable places or checkable books or reliable newspapers or magazines that aren't self-published. Something published in the Guardian is likely notable and checkable. Something alleged to be published in the Downby-in-the-Swamp Enquirer and Almanac probably isn't, and is extremely difficult to verify, seeing as it's a two men one girl and a cat operation with no internet. Other stuff gets classed as OR (Original Research). I'll leave you to imagine the junk we'd get landed with otherwise. (The stuff we DO get landed with that gets deleted...) That's why I made the point of establishing notability. It's not that we are casting aspirins. We're wanting something verifiable. We want articles, but we have to filter out the junk. Sometimes something good has to go because it doesn't fit the standards, sometimes something not so good gets through because unfortunately it does. If this gets deleted, read the relevant policies people have quoted, and take a bit longer to set things up again. Ask for help if unsure - most established editors will help if asked nicely. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability (by WP standards) not shown. -- Hoary (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will add that 'notability' and popularity are not the same. Pace Senza Dio exists and has been debuted in a popular alternative Melbourne nightclub. We should be careful that we don't allow Wikipedia to become a catalog of A-list celebrities and remember it's a place where one can source information. Sir towlie (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Established Wikipedia editors know that notability and popularity are not the same thing, much in the same way that we know a book and an automobile are not the same thing. Your best bet is to read the relevant and well-established guidelines as to what constitutes notability (like this one), and judge whether or not it is possible to fix your article accordingly. Steamroller Assault (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia already has dozens of Z-list slebs (participants in Big Brother and so forth); however, those slebs have been in what pass for the news, etc., and they've verifiably been on the boob tube, watched by millions or anyway tens of thousands. It's not a place where people "source information", unless those people are somewhat dimwitted undergraduates on their way to failing their courses. Instead, it's a place where reliably sourced information is summarized. You're only 21; just wait till you become a sleb and then others will eagerly use published material about you to create an article about you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Funnily enough, a musician that has had their music played in clubs has done more than a Big Brother contestant. Actually first requiring talent and achievement to get public recognition. Sir towlie (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So precisely where is evidence of this "public recognition"? Links to articles in Melbourne newspapers or similar, please. -- Hoary (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as i find no evidence of notability. Being named on a setlist at a club shows someone with this name exists, that is all.Yobmod (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Upon checking the references to the MySpace and Facebook musician pages, one can clearly cite the composers' name as being Anthony Palermo. Sir towlie (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite the highly reliable sources MySpace and Facebook, I don't think there's enough notability here. --Crusio (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no reliable 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Upon investigation of other Wikipedia entries, one can find many pages pertaining to supposedly 'notable' individuals with few or no references at all. Collaboration of all the information provided by the references at very least proves that Anthony Palermo is the founder of the Terran Atheist Alliance and is the composer of Pace Senza Dio which has been played at a popular alternative Melbourne nightclub. Sir towlie (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Littleton[edit]

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

Unsourced, and appears to be unverifiable, it was created by a user who has created at least two hoax articles and this may be another. —Snigbrook 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If the author can't point us to which Stan Little, why should we do needle in haystack work? Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Even if not a hoax, it is unverfiable and non-notable. How can a user be caught creating Hoaxes more than once and not be banned?Yobmod (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, hoax. BencherliteTalk 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eamonn dowd[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax. No Google News hits for anyone called Eamonn Dowd, and the article makes some very grandiose claims (captain of the England football team, scoring on average two goals per game?). The photo in the article is of Ashley Young. ~ mazca t|c 21:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Crutcher[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:ATHLETE notability guidelines. The "National Age Group titles in both swimming and triathlon" are for amateur age-group level competition. Yboy83 (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)[edit]

Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that indicate out-of-universe notability for this fictional character. PROD removed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but improve. This is one of the three principal characters of the TV series and the article should be kept unless the remaining principal characters are also nominated for deletion. I admit that a lot of the content is cruft but that does not necessitate article deletion, just deletion of the cruft. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That there are articles about the others that have not yet been nominated has no bearing on this nomination. The notability of the TV show doesn't mean that the article should be kept as notability isn't inherited. The article cannot be improved in the absence of reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very popular character on a current hit TV show. Please try a little harder. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to challenge you (again) on yet another pop-culture AfD nomination. Did you see this [9] or anything else? I'm going to add some external links now, and come back to it later. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this is not a scientific survey, nor reputable site, "Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)" has almost 18,000 fans on Facebook. This character is notable, period. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I implore you, please read the general notability guideline. The guideline specifically states that notability is not popularity. The popularity of the character is simply not relevant in determining whether the character is notable. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Facebook is not a reliable source as you pointed out and if the facebook entry is maintained by the production company or the network it is not independent. Please also note that significant coverage is defined as "more than trivial" and that single-sentence mentions of a topic in a larger source are "plainly trivial. The source to which you linked has exactly one sentence out of a much longer piece that is unambiguously about the character, which reads in its entirety: "Leading the ensemble cast on “Men” is Charlie Sheen, whose portrayal of oversexed Charlie Harper has garnered him three Emmy nominations and two Golden Globe nods for comedy performance." There is an additional sentence from an unnamed source that says "Charlie" is the reason for the show's success in syndication, but it is unclear whether that is a reference to the actor Charlie Sheen or the character Charlie Harper. Either way, the mention is plainly trivial. It is really not that difficult a concept. Sources = notability. No sources means no independent notability. Can you explain exactly what it is about that concept that is so hard for you to grasp? Because I can certainly try to explain it again. You want the article kept, you "try a little harder. I do not nominate articles for deletion without conducting searches for sourcing, so I do not appreciate your implication that I did not do so here. There, again, appear to be no sources that support the independent notability of this character. I'll chek your external links and I'm sure that I'll find that they are every bit as trivial as the non-source that you posted here.
There is no reason to insult someone's intelligence in an AfD discussion. What goes on here is not that important. We are all trying to make Wikipedia the best it can be. SMSpivey (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um no, some of us are apparently wanting to detract from the encyclopedia by keeping articles that do not come close to meeting the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. This not only weakens the encyclopedia as it stands by maintaining non-encyclopedic topics, it undermines the future of the project by setting precedents for keeping such articles. Otto4711 (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What undermines the future of the project is having to continuously engage in endless arguments with those who push interpretations of guidelines to an extreme far beyond community consensus. When even the only other person arguing to delete (Kww, below) disagrees with you on notability ("the character certainly passes the notability criteria"), I'd suggest you entertain the possibility that your interpretation of the notability guideline is a peculiar personal one. DHowell (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references not only have to be reliable, they musy significantly cover the subject. These do not. Otto4711 (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't. They only need to significantly cover the subject if they are used to establish notability rather than merely verify article content. Since sources show the actor playing this character was nominated for notable awards for doing so, the character is already notable, so the WP:GNG you're referring to here doesn't apply. GNG is just one of many possible notability guidelines, not the only one and certainly not a strict version of WP:V. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • God, aren't you even the slightest bit embarrassed !voting "keep" on the basis of Google hits? You've been around here long enough to know that the Google test is bogus. But hey, lets examine some of the high quality sources that have turned up since this AFD opened:
  • External links section: IMDB - not reliable. A link to an external wiki - not reliable. A list of girlgriend's on a wiki - not reliable. The TV Week article - plainly trivial. The "Wingman" article in the Daily News - doesn't even mention the character's name. The Hofer book - page content's restricted but the character is mention on one page of a 315 page book; in other words trivial. The Muir book - mentioned on one page of a 348 page book...trivial. As for the meager less-than-200 Ghits your search returned, while I did not look at every single one of them, they appear simply to mention the name of the character while providing no real-world information about the character. So they do not pass notability guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, one of the lead characters on a Emmy and Golden Globe nominated television show. This particular character garnered 3 different Emmy nominations for Outstanding Lead Actor and 2 Golden Globe nominations for Best Performance by an Actor in a Comedy Series. I'll go dig up some sources, but honestly, this is a situation where most people would assume in good faith the availability of sources. SMSpivey (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And once again, mere mentions of the character do not constitute significant coverage. And no, the character did not garner any Emmy or GG nominations. The actor did. And the standard is not "I bet there are sources out there somewhere." The standard is "there are reliable sources available." This bizarre notion that articles for which there are no sources should be kept because somebody believes that there might be sources would bring AFD to a grinding halt. There can be no justification for removing any article, not even hoaxes, because someone might believe in the hoax in good faith. Policies and guidelines aregood things. They exist for a reason. If someone believes that this weird "someone somewhere thinks that there might be sources somewhere" should be the standard, then they should take it up on an appropriate policy or guideline talk page and attain consensus rather than trying to backdoor it through AFD because they don't like it. Otto4711 (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but you are wikilawyering an incredibly narrow interpretation of GNG that has not, and will not garner the support of the community. If you can't see that a character in a fiction whose portrayal has garnered multiple major awards is notable, then you are missing the forest for the trees. Wikipedia's policies are not more important than its content. Sort of a moot argument really, since many (not all, though) of the sources I provided speak directly to the character and its motivations. SMSpivey (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the actor was nominated for the award, but it was for playing the character under discussion here.http://www.thegoldenglobes.com/welcome.html?nominee/sheen_charlie.html] - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider off-AfD merger Per Google Books and News I do not doubt that this article can be turned into a GA (i.e. a standalone article may be justified), but if a decruftified version of this quite bad article doesn't leave anything for a standalone-article, then it's time for a merger into new List of Two and a Half Men characters along with the other bad character articles. This can be done outside this AfD. – sgeureka t•c 07:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet one more time, mere mentions of a topic do not make the topic notable. Otto4711 (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet again, enough mere mentions can make a GA (been there, done that), and every future GA needs to start somewhere. You think no-one will put the energy into doing the necessary research (which is a reasonable assumption) => upmerge the character into one character list with easier-to-reach FL potential until someone volunteers. No deletion necessary. – sgeureka t•c 12:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on my comment above. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a valid article about a valid character. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, I disagree with Otto4711's assertion that articles like this about fictional characters are somehow dragging Wikipedia down or spoiling the rest of the apples in the barrel. On the contrary, I think that it's articles like this (while they should be verifiable and accurate even if that involves using fiction as a primary source) that attract readers and potential editors (myself included) who come to Wikipedia to find information a traditional encyclopaedia would lack, and find fiction-related articles an easy path into editing. Secondly, I don't understand this ever-changing requirement for "real-world context" or "out-of-universe notability", where every mention short of an entire book or chapter about a character is dismissed as "trivial" or "unreliable". --Canley (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Although i think the show is terrible, and this article needs serious work, there seem to be sources on this character - at least enough to write a start class article. Weak becasue even with all the sources, i'm not sure that this couldn't be merged to a list of characters (which i find more useful).Yobmod (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, probably keep per WP:SNOW as well. Here is further proof of why "notability" is such a ridiculous concept and how it is interpreted subjectively. An award-winning role with numerous reliable independent references that allow for the potential development of sections on development and reception is somehow called to delete on a not notable basis. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep and tag for expansion and improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates WP:NOT#PLOT, as content of article is essentially a plot retelling. The character certainly passes the notability criteria, but there isn't sufficient content to go beyond a stub once the plot retelling is removed. The trivial amount of legitimate information that could be included on him (none of which is actually in this article, so merging isn't appropriate) would fit nicely in the parent series article.—Kww(talk) 13:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it passes the notability criteria, we keep and improve it. As presented above, there are sufficient sources available to make development and receptin sections, which means the article has realistic potential. Even if you believe the information can go somewhere else then that is a call to redirect at worst, but it clearly has no reason even remotely valid or compelling for redlinking here. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If all content currently under a title should be discarded, deleting the article is the appropriate action, even if someone later chooses to create a different article under the same title.—Kww(talk) 18:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no reason to discard all the content as there is sourced information about this award winning character. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Care to point to a piece of information, aside from plot recap, that isn't already in Two and a Half Men or Charlie Sheen?—Kww(talk) 18:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • We have separate articles on Napoleon and Duke of Wellington and Battle of Waterloo that overlap with each other. These articles, however, expand on specific aspects of their subjects, just as this one does. Overlap is not a reason for deletion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Overlap? No. 100% redundancy is a different matter.—Kww(talk) 18:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yet, just because two people think that the plot summary is somehow unwikipedic does not trump the clear majority of eidtors who work on and use this information. Thus, the plot stuff can and should be balanaced out in this article. I believe from the sources presented above that development and reception sections can and should be developed here and because it has that realistic potential, we should either help editors to do that or allow them to do so and work elsewhere on what does matter to us. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To the extent that any rules would suggest that one of the title characters of the "the most-watched comedy on television", played by an actor who has been nominated multiple times for significant awards for this portrayal, is "not notable", this absurd suggestion should be ignored. Fortunately, the rules don't suggest that, as the notability guideline does not define "significant coverage" to mean that "enough coverage exists to convince Otto4711 that it is significant," and WP:NOT#PLOT says that "a concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work," which is what this is (and to any extent that it is not, that's a reason for improvement, not deletion). There is "real-world" content in this article, including "the character has garnered three Emmy nominations for Outstanding Lead Actor and two Golden Globe nominations for Best Performance by an Actor in a Comedy Series" and "The character of Charlie Harper is loosely based on Charlie Sheen, the actor who portrays the character." DHowell (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Two and a Half Men for now. Sources need to provide more than just trivial coverage or this fails the GNG. Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aggi Dukes[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. JaGatalk 20:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as fails WP:MUSIC. Album is "in production", and no notable singles released. Maybe userfy if desired.Yobmod (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above and no references given to facts that are asserted. Victuallers (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of department stores by country[edit]

List of department stores by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list, tagged as such since 2006. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete non notable list of random facts. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Wikipedia is not a directory, and there are inherent problems: List stores that are still in business? List stores or holding companies? List stores that operate in more than one country in all those countries? What precisely IS a department store? Etc. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a perfectly good criterion: List the ones that have Wikipedia articles. A good many of them there do, though some of the geographic areas do not seem to have been worked on yet. Being defunct does not make them unimportant. Difficulties in definition can be discussed for individual instances. Not random or indiscriminate. Could use some additional content, such as dates. DGG (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly the scope needs clarification in the lead but I disagree with the nomination that this is an indiscriminate list - it is sensibly organised by country and,in several instances, by whether the store is operating or defunct. The better way forward is editorial attention rather than giving up and going for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been regularly maintained many times in the past few months, judging from the history page, including the deletion of vandalism. The list seems to be edited by people who really care about department stores. This is a great list, I would comment that WP:TABLES could be used to improve this already good list article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per nom, how is this list of department stores by country "indiscriminate"? --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Large retail chains are a major part of a county's economy. I assume the list aims at limiting itself to department store chains, instead of individual stores, so the list should not be unreasonably long, nor will it contain trivial entries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Concerns about inclusion criteria can be addressed by editing. (I'd prefer keeping the redlinks, though, otherwise the list would lose it's usefulness compared to the existing category system. - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: in direct contrast to the List of specialty stores (which I AfD'd myself after splitting it out of an article) this list seems capable of being both well-defined and limited in scope and size, since there are relatively few notable chains of major department stores in each country, adds value over and above mere categorization, and has the possibility of stimulating new article creation on notable topics. -- The Anome (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This list is very much non-indiscriminate, and is also well maintained. Any issues here should be resolved via editing, not AfD. — neuro(talk) 08:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to DGG, a good critera is list the ones with Wikipedia articles. This does not seem like the case whatsoever and is a classic example of what happens to a list if let it sit like that: A whole load of non-notable stores end up getting listed. Also, why by country? Sure, there are different department stores in different countries, but there are also other gobal stores that end up getting listed on almost every country. The best solution in my mind would be to see a category implemented to take it's spot because that is an easy and almost maintenance free way to solve the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - Then your issue is with policy, not this specific article. — neuro(talk) 17:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was directed at the "a whole load of non-notable stores end up getting listed" comment - if that is in general like you are saying, you should take it up with policy, not with one particular article. — neuro(talk) 07:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WWE Friday Night SmackDown#Special episodes. Redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 08:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SmackDown All-Star Kick-Off[edit]

SmackDown All-Star Kick-Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable television show, with no third party references or inherrant notability. Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray (2009 film)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable fan-made film. No reliable sources provided, none found. Cannot see how film meets the guideline. TNXMan 19:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Take your pick of reasons. It's not notable, it's not verifiable, it's unsourced, it may not have even been made yet. fuzzy510 (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it exists, then it is a non-notable film made by non-notable producers. No verfied content, so if notability changes (unlikely) would take about one minute to re-create it as a better stub.Yobmod (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disregarding the vote-stacking by those who do not understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines, there appear to be enough non-trivial secondary sources in the article to meet GNG. Of note, many of the refs are broken and either lead to 404 pages or blank content, and overall the article has something of an improper tone. Cleanup is needed, not deletion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric West[edit]

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

This was nominated for speedy as a vandalism/hoax, but I'd rather give it a better view. No opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.
- Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep . what is the reason this article is up for deletion? he is googled more than a grammy winner jody watley that must make him notable. http://trends.google.com/trends?q=eric+west%2C+jody+watley&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 69.112.56.8 (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - at least someone's bothered to put in a load of references Kipof (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable; vanity article exaggerating his notability to the point of near-hoax. Kipof, if you follow most of those "references" you will find they are either fakes or uber-trivial passing mentions of West. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i would disagree orange mike. he has appeared on various red carpet events. [16] has articles on aol [17] and has appeared in a lot of news articles. [18] wikipedia is an adequate way of reading about eric west if someone reads about him. i find this notable . maybe it just needs to be edited down otherwise there is nothing wrong with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.56.8 (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC) — 69.112.56.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Struck duplicate !vote. Remember that this is not a majority vote. MuZemike 19:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for expansion as notability has been shown. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Seems to pass wiki-notability. Fortunately this has little in common with actual notability :-).Yobmod (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I've contributed to Eric West and I don't know how notable you have to be on Wikipedia, but he was on the Women's Day Red Dress Awards to present an award to Larry King today, I think that must mean something. http://wireimage.com/ItemListings.aspx?sr=41&igi=353873&nbc1=1 Vinci33 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. KingU (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_West&action=edit&section=1

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Part 2[edit]

Ray Part 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable fan-made film. No reliable sources provided, none found. Cannot see how film meets the guideline. TNXMan 19:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unverifiable. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 05:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Take your pick of reasons. It's not notable, it's not verifiable, it's unsourced, it may not have even been made yet. fuzzy510 (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources and it's not even remotely notable Tractops (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it exists, then it is a non-notable film made by non-notable producers. No verfied content, so if notability changes (unlikely) would take about one minute to re-create it as a better stub.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trade rates[edit]

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

Delete. No encyclopedic information here. MrShamrock (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a "Trade rate" entry to the list in discounts and allowances, with a citation, since it wasn't listed there already. Jll (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per, S8333631. Ikip (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect - with some cleanup and more references it could work as an article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The reliable sources discussing this group come from mainly two sources: Expecting Armageddon (Stone, 2000), and a 2005 Montana Supreme court Factual and Procedural Background [19]. Other than those, there is also this example of a Harvard student passing through Montana in 2004 briefly documenting every religious group he could find. The best source, for obvious reasons, is the research by Stone that spanned 16 years of visiting and documenting the group in Montana, published in 14 pages of research. With those sources in mind, there are currently 3 WP pages, Leland Jensen, Neal Chase, and Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant, which all basically repeat the same thing. I'm proposing to delete the article about the community and merge any unique information into the Leland Jensen or Neal Chase articles because,

  1. Stone's research was about failed prophecies of Jensen and Chase. Followers were only discussed in ways that they responded to the leader.
  2. Stone had access to membership data and said that the group never exceeded 200, and had less than 88 enrolled in 1994, also noting that the rate of defection accelerated in the 1990s.
  3. A division among the remaining members in 2001 broke them apart, indicating declining participation and ambiguous structure and leadership
  4. The page doesn't have notability of its own, being about a religious group smaller than most church assemblies. It's notability comes from Leland Jensen and his prophecies
  5. The information is not being deleted or censored, but only organized properly
  6. Since Neal Chase is a living person, involved in an unresolved court dispute that is being discussed on the page, and the page is being edited by one of his supporters, it seems particularly prudent that information is presented accurately and fairly.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I am a member of the Baha'i Faith, and as such regard the sect as heretical, and I've been disputing with User:General Disarray for years over these types of articles. However I think deleting the page and using the two biographies is the best way to present the information. Reliable and verifiable sources support this.Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia policy is generally to move content away from articles about people and into articles about the events they participated in. This would suggest merging in the opposite direction to your proposal. Is there a reason this would be inappropriate? JulesH (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Cunado's characterization of the BUPC's article and notability are not being represented accurately here, and he has not found any support whatsoever for this on the article's talk page. In fact, quite the opposite. He first just redirected the article without discussion here. The discussion that followed found no consensus, which I would like to point out included User:MARussellPESE who historically shares the same objections as Cunado. He noted: "Cuñado, there are more criteria for WP:Notability than raw numbers. The OBF doesn't meet any; but Leland Jensen does, and the BUPC by association. Whether they have 100 or 1000 followers they've received extensive, and unwelcome to the BPC, notoriety for the repeated failed prophecies. My first direct experience with Jensen et. al. was the memorable TV Nation episode (five) in August '94. My recollection of Micheal Moore in Times Square wearing a WWI doughboy helmet and trying to raise Jensen on the phone on the appointed day & hour still raises a chuckle. MARussellPESE 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
  1. The BUPC were not studied by Stone, but rather the findings in his book were the result of research done by three different professors from the University of Montana that spanned 16 years.
  2. As MARussell noted, the BUPC were satirized by Michael Moore's T.V. Nation in 1994 among other "Armageddon Groups".
  3. The Missoulian Newspaper more than meets standards for notability, and have been publishing coverage of their local group for more than 30 years.
  4. The BUPC have never published numbers of membership, so any claimed data is purely speculative.
  5. Leland Jensen and Neal Chase's articles are biographies about themselves, and even a cursory glance at the three articles shows that nothing is duly noted in any of the articles. The BUPC are a group with many self-published books and websites about themselves, but this article does not solely rely upon them. In fact very little is found in any of these three articles that relies upon them for references. The biographies about the leaders are separate and independent of the article about the group. Cunado has not provided any difs to support his assertion that these three articles "all basically repeat the same thing".
  6. There is no "unresolved court case" involving the leadership of the group. The 2001 court case has been resolved amicably. The plaintiff in the case, who had created there own site has removed it, and all is well in the group again. This should be obvious to Cunado as his own NSA has twice since 2004 dragged the BUPC, with Neal Chase named as it's President, into Federal Court in Chicago suing them over copyright violations for using the name Baha'i. It's odd that his leaders consider the BUPC notable enough to repeatedly drag into court to protect their marks, but Cunado would have the readers believe the groups is entirely un-notable.
  7. Cunado's WP:TEND with this group isn't hard to establish considering that his contributions show 34 out of 36 edits between 1/18/09 and 1/21/09 involved contributing WP:OR and WP:SYN over these pages mentioned here.DisarrayGeneral 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick review of policy makes these arguments irrelevant. Organizations are notable if they 1: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. AND 2: Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read on below, for as Baileypalblue notes, their notability is well established beyond merely being covered by the local press, but have 3rd party recognition from Stone, appearances on Art Bell, Michael Moore's TV Nation, the Harvard research study, Balch, et al. DisarrayGeneral 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only source that is significant is Stone's. Balch is the researcher published in Stone's book, so that is a redundant source. The others are casual mentions on TV, and the "Harvard research study" was not a study of the group, it was a study of every religious denomination in the state and represents another casual mention. Stone's book and the court document are the only reliable sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, this webpage is the "casual mention" of the Harvard Study. The "casual mention" of the T.V. Nation spot was 10 minutes of the 44 minute episode. These are entirely new concerns, which beg the question "why now" when you've been an active contributing editor to this article since November 2005? Just this past January 18th you did a major rewrite to the article, and on the 19th tried to delete it without discussion. It's natural to question such erratic behavior, isn't it? DisarrayGeneral 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing to delete information. The pages need to reflect the only reliable sources, which means merging and redirecting. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, here is the TV Nation video. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Organization is notable for its place in the history of the Bahá'í faith and per WP:ORG as a prominent local non-commercial organization which has received national reliable source coverage (extensive coverage in The Missoulian, Stone+the Harvard research plus religioustolerance.org and other sources out there for national coverage). The size of the organization (which is disputed) does not render it non-notable if it has received sufficient reliable source coverage, and the size and condition of the organization today is not relevant to the subject's notability, because notability does not expire; even if the organization disappeared tomorrow, the subject would be notable as a matter of historical record. Any further concerns about article sourcing, BLP, unnecessary duplication of content, etc. should be dealt with via article editing, not deletion. Per the comment of User:JulesH, it appears that Leland Jensen and Neal Chase are both independently notable, so there's no reason to delete any of the three articles. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article appears to meet WP:ORG and WP:RS standards. If the nominator wishes to merge the text into other articles, that is a matter for another forum. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retract - I agree that this is a merge issue and not a deletion. I should have proposed a merge with RFC. I'll go that route, sorry for the confusion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. That's obviously a gross over-simplification of the intentions behind this AFD, for in the first attempt to redirect this material to the Leland Jensen article copious amounts of information were being deleted in the process. I'm glad to see the obvious subterfuge being attempted here has been resolved. Good luck with the "merger". DisarrayGeneral 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uncle G. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bunting[edit]

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

Prod deleted (by article's author). Move to AfD for non-notability. (Note that Univeral Ministries is an internet church offering free ordination to anyone for the asking. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • should be a speedy delete - this is classic db-bio material. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete There is no established Church in Northern Ireland, and no such thing as 'legal ordination' there. Universal Ministries is an American organisation, and I quote from http://www.universalministries.com/doctrine.html "The Universal Ministries will ordain anyone that requests ordination within our Doctrines for free. Requests may be made online or through postal mail with actual ordination being granted through the Milford, Illinois church, though you do not have to be present, followed by electronic return proclamation email to all that provide an email address. Requests within our articles and doctrines will be honored, and you will be legally ordained within them. ". Let's all get ordained too - it's FREE and you don't have to leave your fireside.... Peridon (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At first look, the fact that it's been a long-running band featured in Guitar Hero and later Rock Band got my hopes up, but according to List of songs in Rock Band the game developer has featured bands with fellow or former team members or from the local area, suggesting this isn't as good a rubric as we might think (a COI, et al.) Article does not have the coverage necessary to meet GNG, and neither do their spinoff album articles (It's Not as Bad as I'm Making It Sound and Third Time's The Charm). io9 hasn't been established as a reliable source, but it's possible the author, Annalee Newitz, meets WP:SPS. That gives us one weak source for a keep. The google book mention is in a work of fiction, and the other sources I found were trivial. It's possible that soon this article might meet GNG or BAND; as such, they don't appear to know. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honest Bob and the Factory-to-Dealer Incentives[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Honest Bob and the Factory-to-Dealer Incentives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I see that this page has been around quite a long time and has been nominated previously. I don't think this in itself makes it notable. The references are quite inadequate - surely a notable band would be able to rustle up something better. I see no evidence of the band having had any recordings on a reputable record label or of any of their members being well-known in their own right. Even the evidence of their music having supposedly used in advertising is sketchy. If I'm mistaken, I'm sure someone will put me right. Deb (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There seem to have been two issues with this article: notability and verifiability. I'm on the fence about notability. Being used in Guitar Hero certainly conveys some notability, but I don't think it should be a band's sole claim to notability. Same with Car Talk. If this is a well-known band, someone besides a school newspaper should have written about them at some point. As for verifiability, the only news sources I could find besides the MIT paper were brief mentions in articles about Guitar Hero. So I'm leaning toward deletion, but I could be convinced otherwise by some reputable, published coverage. Graymornings(talk) 18:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant side note. This is probably the most awesome name for a band I have ever, ever, ever heard. Graymornings(talk) 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (though a bit weakly)--I don't think that Guitar Hero automatically makes for notability, and the lack of verifiable, in-depth coverage weighs pretty heavily for me. I also couldn't find anything not-GHero related, and that's a big strike against the band, cool name notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no significant 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't generally have much to do with AfDs, so I'm not "voting". The article's current sources are a bit weak. Would io9.com help? The post is written by Annalee Newitz. -Phoenixrod (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw that too--there's blogs and there's not so good blogs; this one seems pretty decent to me. Problem is, for me, that it's way too short (in my opinion) to count as substantial, in-depth coverage per WP:N...But thanks for pointing it out, and please don't be bashful about voicing your opinion beyond giving (useful) comments! Drmies (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - not sure which company released their albums, but they have 3, and a track on a "Rock Band" game in addition to Guitar Hero. I find lots of minor mentions, which added together make me lean towards keep. They also get a psssing mention at google booksYobmod (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow Fight League[edit]

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

Organization is non-notable organization referenced in single ESPN article; it masquerades as a "sports league"; and it was previously removed due to both nonsense and notability issues Mhking (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - By the time the article was nominated for AfD, it contained citations from ESPN, the New York Times, and Reuters. To so quickly dismiss it as non-notable at this time seems like a mistake. The event has garnered enough press to clearly alleviate the earlier concerns that the previous versions of the article (now restored and available in the history) were actually nonsense (although notability was a good deal more iffy at the time). MrZaiustalk 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC) PS: 73 other news sources are also available at this time including multiple sources about the sale of television rights to reality TV producers.[reply]
  • Keep- It looks incredibly silly, but it does have several sources which indicate notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: international reliable source coverage easily satisfies the general notability guideline of WP:N and WP:CORP. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree with the rationale for the article being present. I feel that it is non-encyclopedic, and that your additions have not salvaged that notion. So despite your request that I remove my AfD, I will allow the AfD request to move forward. --Mhking (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - Just wanted to make sure you saw the intervening edits. MrZaiustalk 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As Umbralcorax said, it looks silly, but it also seems notable enough to warrant inclusion. jenuk1985 (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may be silly, but so's Al Gore (not POV there are sources :D) and he's notable too. (Irrelevant to AfD, but "damage a trois" is a great phrase). - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Body Lift[edit]

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

Delete as unsalvegable spam. The subject may need an article on it, but this is not it. Paragraphs like "The female physique embodies the true sense of a three dimensional shape in space. It not only presents with curves in a two dimensional hour-glass form, but also curves that are appreciated as the bust in the front and the buttock in the back. A Total Body Lift procedure is typically performed after massive weight loss in order to correct both the upper and lower body contours. The surgery was pioneered by Doctor Dennis Hurwitz as a one stage operation. However, more commonly, it is nowadays performed as a two-stage procedure both by Dr. Dennis Hurwitz and his collegue Dr Siamak Agha-Mohammadi." indicate that it is most likely a made-up name for a couple of plastic surgeons who want to look like they offer something better than competitors; I note that the second name given (Siamak Mohammadi) is the same as the user who created the article. Ironholds (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete — not quite sure if the user (my guess is that the creator is an M.D.) is blatantly trying to promote this technique, is engaging in original research, or is just rolling a bunch of other stuff into a personal essay. In either case, this is clearly against what Wikipedia is not. MuZemike 17:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Obvious spam and promotion of a business entity. §FreeRangeFrog 17:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and salvage usable content. Surely contains some junk, but part of it might be salvageable. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and fast! Blatant advertising! Deb (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I don't see anything salvageable here, and none of the references actually address the supposed topic, "Total Body Lift," besides that reference to the website. Then there is a pretty clear COI problem: the creator is also the doctor on the website, Dr Siamak Agha-Mohammadi. Then there is, and this is a reason for a speedy, a copyvio problem: look for "The choice depends on the degree of back tissue laxity" halfway down the article and you get this. That's all pretty damning. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quoted text you mention is in some cases attributed to a Dr Agha or Argha, so there might be implied consent to reuse here. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should have been speedied as spam. Edward321 (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep and possibly rename. i think the special nature of plastic surgery done after bariatric surgery is a real one, though perhaps not under this name. DGG (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, generalise and rename. I declined the prod on this because I thought it was a poor article on a plausible subject; I've since done some poking around and maintain my initial view. The general concept of plastic surgery to remove excess skin folds after massive weight loss after bariatric surgery or other rapid weight loss is distinct from other plastic surgery techniques, is not only carried out by the doctors named here and has a large peer-reviewed literature under a variety of names. A quick search failed to find another Wiki article on the topic into which this could be merged. The search "total body lift" gives 3 hits in Medline and appears to refer specifically to the procedure being carried out in a single operation, which has been pioneered by Hurwitz et al., who appear experts in this area. This article [20] from www.cosmeticsurgery.com appears to call the general procedure "body contouring" and "body shaping" as well as "body lift" and provides a more balanced viewpoint. Medline articles use "body contouring" and also refer to the general procedure as "post-bariatric surgery reconstruction" or simply "plastic surgery after gastric bypass" and similar. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and cleanup or redirect. This is indeed a real name for a massive plastic surgery, maybe this name is used more in the UK? I've definitly seen a British documentary about a woman who had this done after loosing lots of weight due to illness, and they called it a total body lift. Should be moved to non-capitalised name. If advertising is aproblem cut it down to a stub.Yobmod (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I can't find much independent mention of it. If there is any salvageable content, it should be able to fit into Plastic surgery, under "sub-specialities." - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not wishing to badger, but looking at the cosmetic surgery section of the plastic surgery article, almost all of the procedures mentioned there have subarticles. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, probably best if we remove the spam from the article and see what's left. Like I say, I can't find many independent sources, but I'll go through it now and let's see if we've got an article. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. From removing all the irrelevant preamble, I can see what's left is a combination of existing procedures. These are pretty much covered in Body shaping. The same concept. The few lines that are not can be merged to there. I don't see myself (as a layman who only practises plastic surgery as a hobby in bars for a bet when drunk) that there is any reason to credit any individuals with this procedure.
Merge to Body shaping.
- ( bolded - Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'll post the obesity paragraph on the obesity talk page. They might make use of it.
(The line the nom mentions, The female physique embodies the true sense of a three dimensional shape in space, could maybe be merged to the Gender geometry page)
- Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Body shaping#Body lifting. I'm not an expert on this, but there doesn't appear to be much difference between the two. "Total Body Lift" appears to be a commercial term with less than a handful of pubmed hits, and the wiki article is quite unencyclopedic. I would mark the redirect with {R with possiblities} in case someone wants to expand it in encyclopaedic fashion. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - definite spam. I disagree with a redirect, too. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 03:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete everything else aside, even if the topic is notable this would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. Just kill it now and maybe someone can pick up the pieces later. Tavix (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoveGame (Lady GaGa Song)[edit]

LoveGame (Lady GaGa Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy declined. Not a single, hasn't charted. No sources, fails WP:V. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 17:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's the exact song being talked about in this article. This weeks #48 SunCreator (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there's a video for it, it's obviously the next single —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.29.59 (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuna (Polynesian mythology)[edit]

Tuna (Polynesian mythology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am not an expert on this subject but it is flagged as a potential hoax. Note following text copied from talk page:
This article has no provenance and the culture of origin is not identified. Has no value (or credibility) without these. It also erroneously combines stories from different countries, as shown by the use of the names Sina (possibly Samoan) and Hina (possibly Māori or Hawaiian) Kahuroa 22:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
KuyaBriBriTalk 17:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a hoax. Has a brief entry on p.478 of Dictionary of Ancient Dieties by Turner and Coulter. Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears in published sources. Sorry, Charlie. WillOakland (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion with comment. For my part as the nom I have no opinion on the subject; however, my reason for nominating this article here was to help out per WP:HOAX#Dealing with hoaxes. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Restored a link to Encyclopedia Mythica, which was deleted by the same editor who added the hoax tag. Edward321 (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of sources available, although having read some, the article may need to be adjusted to reflect them. ascidian | talk-to-me 17:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to Predator technology#Medicomp. I'm gonna be bold and close this. Pointing the reader to existing referenced material solves the issue. Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medicomp[edit]

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

Refers to a non-notable fictional device, no citations Fences and windows (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ICONICS[edit]

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

Contested speedy and re-created page. Non-notable company; borderline (if not blatant) advertising. 9Nak (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.
  • Comment - This is a borderline case indeed; the company may be known within the industry (500 Google hits for ICONICS+GENESIS), but is far from a household name. The GENESIS32 article was purely promotional, so I turned it into a redir to the company article for now. I have asked the author to rewrite the ICONICS article to show notability. Let's give him a chance to do that. Owen× ☎ 16:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: The author seems disinterested in improving the article, ignores attempts to reason with him, and is now trying to recreate the deleted GENESIS32 page. I don't see much chance of saving this article. Owen× ☎ 17:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. More than borderline. This article reads like a company promotional brochure. It needs a rewrite from the bottom up. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been placed in the Automation category and follows same guidelines as other company descriptions in its category. IndstrlAtmtn (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Fanuc_Intelligent_Platforms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_Automation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opto_22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invensys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.133.9 (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not clear what guidelines those would be. The only guideline I can see is the WP:BFAQ#Company page that ICONICS (talk · contribs) referenced on Category talk:Automation. However, THAT FAQ specifically cites a process whereby an author affiliated with a company should request assistance from a member of a related Wikiproject (WP:Wikiproject Companies in this case). The ICONICS article has been edited exclusively by "an author with a disclosed affiliation to the company". The other articles cited here were all created by independent authors. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catacombs 2: Party Time (film)[edit]

Catacombs 2: Party Time (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article on future straight-to-DVD picture. Couple of problems here: Apart from a few vague mentions on sources that are definitely not reliable, there doesn't seem to be anything verifiable about the existence of this project. IMDb listings for the actors involved, for example, don't mention the project; there are no news items and so on. Added to that the unfortunate fact that one of the producers mentioned died in 2005, and we have an article with "issues" FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NYScholar has brought to the fore sources which might allow article to meet GNG, and at the bare minimum suggest that there may still be more sources to use. I frankly can't understand much of what Jetskere is saying, but it appears to be editorial in nature and thus not in the purview of an AfD. Take it to talk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malaka Dewapriya[edit]

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

The subject still lacks sufficient notability according to general notability guideline and has been nominated for the same reason before, when the result was deletion. See Talk:Malaka Dewapriya (more than one section) for current discussion and link to previous discussion: Articles for deletion: Malaka Dewapriya. --NYScholar (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Update request for closure: I request that this review be closed now. Please see my own and Michael Q. Schmidt's subsequent comments acknowledging vast improvement of this article since I first posted the AfD template. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]

[Please see #Query re: procedure for closure. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Related comments[edit]

Please see subsequent discussion in Talk:Malaka Dewapriya#Continued discussion: several comments [below (now in #String of votes)] do not take into account when Susitha R. Fernando (Sachie Fernando) wrote her news articles based on interviews with the subject in Sunday Times. It was when he was still an undergraduate and graduate student.

  • I suggest that one read the sources and not just count the number of them and also that one notice the relative chronological dates of publication. Thanks.
  • I also suggest that editors not involved in the subject of Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan film, and other Sri Lankan topics be the ones who evaluate the notability of this subject, from a neutral not involved point of view. As one not previously involved in any Sri Lanka topics, I see myself as a more neutral observer than those who have had previous involvements with Sri Lankan subject editing in Wikipedia or those previously involved in the earlier deletion of the article from Wikipedia (see that linked discussion above).
  • Not enough more recently-published reliable third-party notable sources have been added to this article in the past year to alter the previous decision to delete it. --NYScholar (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been working over the past few days to try to correct this problem. Whether I and others have supplied by now enough reliable third-party published and verifiable sources to enable others to decide to "keep" the article is currently being discussed. The article is currently being worked on further by at least two editors. --NYScholar (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that I may have supplied enough more recent sources and developed the EL sec. further enough to make the subject seem more currently notable (not just student work but more recent work (2007 and 2008). --NYScholar (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Structure[edit]

This New article structure is who created By NYScholar. It is appearing Dewapriya’s most of self publications. I believe there are of Other Primary sources in Sri Lanka Language and Other International web sites. There is no other Sri Lankan text in English or on the internet. That is why You can find out lots of Susitha fernando's and Sunday Times articles. This situation is Relate To my other articles which I Edit.Nira WickramasingheJ B Disanayake,Shelton PayagalaDhamma Jagoda There is author for everything .Nothing outside of author and text.( I am thinking about this neutral Pont of view) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetskere (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last I looked, it wasn't a nonstarter to be able to cite a foreign language article. Someone can be asked to verify a fact in translation, so can always be checked. We used those a lot in the 3mos flamewars five years ago in the Tsushima, Tsushima Islands and various nationalisticly driven related controversies which I mediated with Mel Etitis, sans any language skills. Whether the source is reputable is still under the notablilty guidelines of course, which was the key in the end. Unsupported web content went out, and thereafter things got simple... all that was before Cites were available. So if it's a source... use it. (With a quote and translation of quote would be best.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabartus (talk • contribs) 13:19, 11 February 2009
    • [But it is necessary that the English language in which the article is expressed be idiomatic English. If the editor translating from the foreign language into English has not got a strong command of the English language, it will create even more problems for this article, and we will be back to square one with it. Please look at the editing history of this article. Thank you. There have been real problems with lack of familiarity and lack of adherence to Wikipedia's own core editing policies and citation guidelines pertaining to WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Notability. It is not clear to me that Jetskere understands that the work done to this article since February 3, 2009 has been done in an attempt to improve its quality and the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Please do not encourage such misperceptions. The "structure" of the article has not even been an issue and the use of the term in the above heading is further misleading. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]

String of votes[edit]

  • Weak Delete Whilst the article has a large number of references, if one excludes self-published sources, simple directories or exhibition catalogues (which do not establish notability), the references that remain would appear to amount to a number of articles in a single Sunday newspaper. WP:RS is slightly coy about the status of newspapers as regards notability, merely remarking that the "quality" press is of more weight in establishing notability. In my view, it carries considerable weight where in the newspaper the article is carried. Articles about the subject in the main newspaper, as news articles carry some weight. Articles in the arts supplement that are essentially coffee-table and waiting-room fodder carry very little weight. As such, I can't accept that this series of articles establishes any sort of notability. Mayalld (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Struck vote to enable this mess of an AFD to be put out of its misery. Mayalld (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong Keep as article does have sourcing and looks like it will be has been greatly improved by some decent copyedit. The assertion of being a first Sri Lankan to acomplish a notable act needs clarification. Per WP:CSB, I'd recommend cleanup, nor deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My hat is off to User:NYScholar who went at the article with a single-minded determination to make it shine. I was going to pout a bit as I had not weighed in on the article itself... but I know the work of a Master when I see it. It is rare to see someone nomoinate an article for deletion and then himself turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Well done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A good scholar should be able to argue both sides, but few actually do. Plastikspork (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An rare event which explains my pleased surprise. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You ahve to dig a bit for the good refs, and the student thing threw me a bit. But there is substantial coverage and recognition to warrant an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he has two articles written about him in The Sunday Times (it's [unsourced] Wikipedia page reports it as the second larges English Language newspaper in the country, after one owned by the state), seems to establish notability to me.--kelapstick (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:CSB, as cited by Mr. Schmidt. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like it meets notability requirements to me across a range of subjects. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- why not question notability of articles on geosciences or math? Stop wasting people's time, and add content. // FrankB 17:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Before you accuse good-faith editors of "wasting people's time" in asking for a deletion review of much prior versions of this article, you need to consult the article's history when I encountered it, with its prior template and the previous deletion decision 268246651: if anyone's time has been "wasted", it's mine. (Scroll up to top). --NYScholar (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(cont.) Please see User talk:Fabartus: if you can "in good conscience" "no longer support this project" why are you commenting here at all? Please Be polite: this kind of comment made obviously without consulting the article's long controversial deletion history sets a very poor example for newer editors. --NYScholar (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]
  • Strong delete. Non-notable, may well become notable, but not every one who has film shown at a short film festival becomes Quentin Taratino, not every drama student becomes Harold Pinter. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The very fact that an article of such length can be twritten and sourced to reliable sources show someone thinks he is notable enough to write about in the real world. Winning medals at fimlm fests and being published as writer combine to make a minor notable person.Yobmod (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query re: procedure for closure[edit]

[Can an administrator close this review now? --NYScholar (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)] [reply]

[Or, does itDoes this AfD have to stay open for 5 days after nomination so that more people can have an opportunity to weigh in (to consider the notability of the subject, [and of the sources being cited in the article] which is the main issue raised initially; that template has been removed, but that has been the main issue). There is still one delete vote. I am not sure that this discussion can be closed before 5 days. Perhaps an experienced administrator can review both the first (archived) discussion and this one and advise here. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just updated the article on Sunday Times, which made a statement about its relative circulations numbers with no supporting source that turns out to have been erroneously misleading. Its estimated circulation figures come in beneath those of 3 other English-language Sunday newspapers in Sri Lanka, making it less notable than apparently thought earlier. --NYScholar (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC) There was no source given to support the statement cited in another comment above that it is "the second larges[t] English Language newspaper in the country, after one owned by the state" and that appears to be untrue. --NYScholar (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have also been some questions raised on user talk page of one of the main editors about whether that editor is another sockpuppet of earlier banned creators and contributors to this article. I do not know the answer to those questions. --NYScholar (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See User talk:Jetskere#Malaka Dewapriya (2). There has not yet been a response to those questions posed by another user. --NYScholar (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone can create and Edit any kind of Article to Wikipedia.I am not Same Guy.If that article was going to delete you should find out those problems to that article. I believe all writings are author basis.Author is the writer.I cam make a example from this new editing foot notes unique feature of the festival is that length dramas and short dramas will be held together with alternative theatre,, . those are totally NYScholar personal ideas. i believe this is very good way to make delete to concider about quality of one article. but you should make this point of view to New york basis articles too. (Jets (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • There is nothing "personal" about my editing of the article. It is really important that those who edit English Wikipedia have a strong command of idiomatic English. Correcting such errors really is extremely time-consuming and has nothing to do with anything "personal"; it has to do with basic knowledge of the English language and of Wikipedia's core editing policies and related editing, style, and citation guidelines. Please see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

The statement that Jetskere has put within italics above is not mine; [the part falsely attributed to me as if the words were my "personal" view] is actually a direct quotation from the source cited and presented precisely as a quotation. Clearly, Jetskere misses that. --NYScholar (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Item currently numbered as Note 18 (within quotation marks): Note 18 (Quotation of words from the source, exactly as stated by the source [not me]). --NYScholar (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[Updated note # due to later revisions. --NYScholar (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]
  • Moreover, that source is the full citation that I was able to glean from the URL inserted as an EL by Jetskere earlier--it would be helpful if s/he read the source that s/he linked: I realized that it does not substantiate details of the production of Pinter's plays [which Jetskere had problematically inserted in One for the Road, and (in so doing) had misindicated its source(s)--actually, not identifying what the actual source(s) of the details was or were]; I corrected that problem as a result of that realization in the other article, leading me to this one initially. --NYScholar (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Note: After some work, I have discovered that the unacknowledged source is the self-published Website of Malaka Dewapriya; whereas that site can be cited in the article on him, it is not a reliable third-party published source and cannot be used as a source for One for the Road (Harold Pinter play). One would need a more more reliable third-party published source if one were to cite it in that article, though I still do not think the production notable enough to refer to there. --NYScholar (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]
  • For original contexts of the above situation, please see One for the Road#One For the Road Sri Lanka Production (an amateur student production directed by Dewapriya, which I have removed from the Pinter play article, where it was inappropriately inserted by Jetskere [in my view]). I followed the URLs inserted by Jetskere and was led to the problems in this article on Malaka Dewapriya. For the conflict of interest that seems apparent to me and other editors [Cf. first AfD discussion linked at top], see the user pages of those listed at top of Talk:Malaka Dewapriya; particularly User:Malakadew, who appears to be the subject of this article and a sockpuppet of blocked/banned/deleted earlier editors. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really does appear that one or more editors with conflicts of interest pertaining to Sri Lankan-related subjects is misusing Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Gaming the system) to promote those Sri Lankan-related subjects, including in their own user and talk pages, and even these project pages; these types of activities breach WP:LOP, espec. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --NYScholar (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken closure[edit]

I did not withdraw my nomination of this article for deletion. I had thought of doing that, then crossed that out, because, while working on trying to improve this article, I have been finding more and more discrepancies in the material inserted by earlier editors and what reliable sources actually document. The subject is still less notable than might appear.

Today I examined the list of "Student Guests" for the 10th International Student Film Festival more closely, and I realized that this subject was not "the first" Sri Lankan whose film was selected for an "internationally-recognized" student film festival, as the local Sri Lankan newspaper article based on an interview with him states; he was one of two Sri Lankan students whose films were selected for that festival; I've revised the presentation of that information and cited the source. [On the basis of being such a "first", there is no article on the other Sri Lankan student filmmaker. --NYScholar (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]

As many people reviewing this AfD have been assuming that he is a "first" in this regard and have been basing their sense of his "notablity" almost entirely on that, I draw people's attention to this reality.

The danger of having people create and edit articles on themselves is a breach or violation of both the general notability guideline and Wikipedia's core editing policy of neutral point of view. In taking a lot of time to edit this article, I have been trying to save it; but vast doubts remain about how it got into Wikipedia in the first place and residual sense remains in the logical reasons for its intial deletion a year ago.

In the space of one year, this subject has not become more notable than he was in 2008. It is the way the article has been puffed up to reflect the subject's own perspective on himself that misleads. I've tried to cut out as much of that as possible and to indicate what the actual sources are. I would like this article to remain in the AfD category for its full time, so that administrators can take a look at its entire history (from creation to present) to see whether or not the subject is indeed notable enough for this article in Wikipedia. I also refer administrators to the sockpuppets involved in editing its past versions, and refer to what appears to be the Wikipedia user identity of the subject, User:Malakadew (one of the sockpuppets of previously blocked and deleted users), whose user page I have marked for speedy deletion due to its breaches of Wikipedia user page guidelines as it is clearly an attempt at additional self-promotion. [edited, since I've learned that the user is indefinitely blocked and cannot edit using this screen name.] --NYScholar (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC) It makes no sense for there to be a self-promotional user page for an indefinitely blocked user. --NYScholar (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC) The page was recently (Feb. 2009) edited by Jetskere (cf. contributions history via [21] with that of User:221.162.72.115 via [22]), but it should be deleted, in my view. --NYScholar (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)] [Updated: the user page (User:Malakadew) has been deleted, which is why it is now red-linked. --NYScholar (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Residual notability doubts[edit]

I think that the notability of this subject as a subject of a biography of a living person in Wikipedia is still dubious because I have actually examined and read the sources and agree with the arguments provided initially by the editor who prematurely closed this review. I think there are still questionable tactics relating to this article prior to my encountering it (before Feb. 9)–See Feb. 3. version at 268246651 for comparison. Even if it is kept ultimately, Wikipedia really needs to confront and discuss this matter with those involved in misleading Wikipedia readers in editing this article (see 1st [archived] deletion review linked at top). --NYScholar (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[The user identity previously blocked indefinitely somehow returned to engage in the same activities for which he was blocked; yet I can see no evidence that the block listed ever expired.Block log. It appears that that user may be editing Wikipedia under another or other additional sockpuppets since 2008. [Administrative aid would be helpful here.] --NYScholar (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]

There are lots of resources and link on the internet. I was not found any link about that other director’s information on internet. If you refer that site http://fest.tau.ac.il/search_film.asp?act=filmview&subact=film&formKeyword=life%20circle&flid=838 There is no anything about another director or his films. NYSCHOLAR mention that my mistake about that previous footnote. I want to say that ‘’armature student drama productions ‘’ like writing is belongs to him. There is no any data to say that production student ,amateur or not. It is same for the student exhibitions head line. And I find out Academy Schloss Solitude not a training institute .it is professional art fellowship center. I can this writing is dominants writes perspective. As well as I saw one of foot note, Sachie Fernando he bracket [Susitha ] . Anybody can make difference kind of interpretations and argument. I invite to another writer to compare those comments and arguments. And there is no way find out if somebody going to crate and one article previously is delete or not. All Not good quality article deletion policy should be related to all articles in the world. But it should not be a one new York man or woman ‘s one argument to partial. (Jets (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Hudson[edit]

Ron Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Mike Major (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Goodner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These three articles are about college football assistant coaches. The closest notability guideline we have, AFAIK, for American football coaches would be the one for athletes, which says that individuals who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport are presumed to be notable. They have not, and therefore fail to meet our notability guideline. – wodup – 04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nominations for Ron Hudson and John Goodner based on recent improvements showing that they meet the general notability guideline. WODUP (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Weak keep As a guideline for how to think of this, people in charge of notable organizations are notable, like coaches, but not usually their assistants. Of course, many of them will have been professional players before that, and be thus notable, such as Brent Pease. DGG (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changed on the basis of Baileypalblue's distinctions.DGG (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong keep Hudson ran the offense at a Big XII school and at an SEC school. He coached, developed and tutored numerous players who later played in the NFL. Major did the same, though only in the SEC. Goodner did so in both conferences, including with legendary coaches such as Grant Teaff and Spike Dykes. There are tons of articles on Wikipedia about college athletes and coaches, and that's absolutely appropriate: they are of interest to a very wide audience, and they are significant contributors to something that hundreds of thousands of people follow in person on any given Saturday in the fall, and millions more on television. Entertainers, musicians, actors, soccer players and coaches, fictional Star Trek or Star Wars characters . . . I don't see how the hundreds of articles in those categories are notable but articles on offensive coordinators - one step below head coach - in two of the most successful and competitive conferences in the country in NCAA football would not be.LanternLight (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To all contributors to AFD discussions: When discussing an article for AFD please so note when you are the author of the article under debate. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I'm more positive than User:DGG regarding the notability of assistant coaches, especially offensive and defensive coordinators (which includes all three of these subjects). Assistant coaches work in a higher-profile environment than assistants in most other professions; their football programs are cultural icons and receive commensurate public attention. Coordinators often have a great deal of autonomy and may rival the head coach of their team in terms of importance; the coordinator of a major conference team is often more notable than the head coach from a small school. I'd tend to work on the presumption that most offensive and defensive coordinators are notable. Considering these specific cases, I would give a Week Keep to Mike Major, who seems to have had a relatively undistinguished career; but I would give a Strong Keep to Ron Hudson, who is arguably the most successful offensive coordinator in Kansas State history, and to John Goodner, who had a long and distinguished career and is a member of the Southwestern Oklahoma State University Athletic Hall of Fame. I have updated all three articles with reliable source coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and to address the deletion rationale of User:WODUP, I'm not sure WP:ATHLETE is the best guideline for judging coaches, whose work is mental and not athletic; I'd be inclined to judge them by WP:CREATIVE. In any case, college football coaching is fully professional, and is not a developmental tier the way college football play is to the pros, so I don't think college coaches should be presumed non-notable based on WP:ATHLETE's rationale. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about a neologism that appears to have been made up in class. TNXMan 14:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:NEO as a neologism. References certainly indicate this page was created as high school joke. Although the word does appear in other sources, that's not enough to warrant a page. — CactusWriter | needles 14:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sibling as a different way of saying Brah (which I believe is the correct way of saying it), which is already redirected there. MuZemike 17:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced neologism. Note the author's use of two "student[s] at Southeast Raleigh High School" as references. Urban Dictionary (cited above as other sources) is not a reliable source. Also note that the author has vandalized his own contribution. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Made up neologism. Already in Urban Dictionary, so unless reliable sources turn up, no reason to duplicate in Wiktionary either. - Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Unreleased (Britney Spears album)[edit]

The Unreleased (Britney Spears album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. Article about a ficticious album. Mayalld (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I initially thought the same thing (indeed, I PROD'ed the article), but upon further review, this does appear to be an actual bootleg album, as noted here. However, I cannot find any reliable sources to support an article and would think a redirect to Britney Spears discography would be the way to go. TNXMan 14:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It doesn't get more obvious that this was made up one day than these quotes from the article:
"The Unreleased is a fan invention from pop singer Britney Spears."
"but always keep in mind this doesn't really exist." DitzyNizzy (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete The article even says that it's made up. This is open and shut. fuzzy510 (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Emery[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. No reliable mainstream third party sources to support notability. Books appear to be published by a low profile specialty publisher. Seems like just a local guru. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will get the references needed to prove notability. Dr. Kevin also channeled Wei Chi Reiki a new form of Reiki that has been around for about 19 years now. I will get the required information for you.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radromeo (talk • contribs) 14:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this article now has enough links from third party sources to back up the information. I think it should stay. ALM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.143.79.120 (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response. I take GREAT offense to being called a spammer! This is the definition of spam from WIKIPEDIA: "Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to indiscriminately send unsolicited bulk messages." The use of that word to describe my post doesn't even fit or make sense. This is the first time I've ever posted to wikipedia because I've never felt I've had anything to add. I've also not been able to post anything else because I have to fight with people like you just to keep my one post up. Why would I want to post anything else and waste my time to have people try to get it deleted. Dr. Kevin is someone who is known worldwide and if bringing something NEW to the Western World isn't noteworthy, I don't know what is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radromeo (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - without prejudice, on the basis that a Google search for ' "Kevin Emery" holistic ' turns up no reliable independent sources, and I would expect it to if he were. Journalists invariably use cliches - Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted. Hoaxes are vandalism. Also a likely attack page, and finally, an article about an unsigned band with no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agents Of Insight[edit]

Agents Of Insight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article contains a lot of peacock terms to make us believe they're notable, but I was unable to dig up any reliable sources. Only a MySpace page. Mgm|(talk) 14:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. This has a MySpace band as its nominal subject. The text of the article contains a fairly obvious suggestion that this is a hoax and an attack page: (Name omitted) started a band in just 10 days beccause of physical trauma suffered to his right placenta. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Skinner[edit]

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

Whole lot of notability claims, but nothing is verifiable. Google has not even 200 hits, none relevant. Google News turns up empty. Mgm|(talk) 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Dale (writer)[edit]

Penny Dale (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CREATIVE; my assertion of non-notability is largely based upon the fact that none of the works to which she has contributed have articles. Seegoon (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing House ERSEN[edit]

Publishing House ERSEN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The only claim that can be considered a claim of notability is that it is "one of the largest" publishers in Estonia. That is a peacock term that should be avoided and there appears no evidence it is THE largest. The other content basically says it works together with literary agents, which is nothing remarkable for a reliable publisher. I'm nominating this for deletion because there is a complete lack of encyclopedic content and because inclusion of non-content is in my view advertising. Mgm|(talk) 13:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Fwiw, this Estonian site (presumably a bookseller) lists 1740 of this publisher's books, more than the Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. This article published by the National Estonian Foundation of Canada refers to Harlequin Enterprises as a similar publisher to ERSEN (try putting the article text into Google Translate), implying both that the two publishers' notability is similar and that the target audience of that web site, presumably Estonian residents in Canada, would be familiar with ERSEN. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six magazine[edit]

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

(Yeah, but it's an unknown magazine, SoWhy. From the looks of it, it's one of those school magazines that no one knows about. Doesn't even explain what school it came from.)

Did a Google search, found nothing on the SIX magazine except this article. I'm getting Page Six and Six Degrees, but no SIX specifically. Elm-39 - T/C 13:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No citations or concrete attempt to demonstrate either notability or real world existence of this magazine. The red flag for me is the weasel comment "it is well known for it's..." -Markeer 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable local school paper with no independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk)
  • Delete I found the site for the mag by combining my googlefu with good search words: http://www.sixmag.co.uk/ however, the site doesn't convince me it meets any criteria for written publications. They don't seem to be covered in news sources at all and Google doesn't turn up anything relevant -- Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't even attempt to establish notability. fuzzy510 (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justice in Poetry[edit]

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

Seems to be an essay, breaching guidelines too numerous to mention. Most relevant, though, is its non-adherence to WP:OR. Seegoon (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Article has also been nominated for speedy delete (by a different editor). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an essay of original research, as noted. Perhaps a redirect to poetic justice is in order? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agree with nom; it's an original-research essay. Sketchmoose (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--holymoly, this is some OR, and it's not very well done. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essay with original research - Mgm|(talk) 09:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Badly done OR piece. — neuro(talk) 08:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am trying hard to think of a reason not to delete....and can't thus far. Does read like an essay. Needs a massive cleanup...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as apparent hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orégonomy[edit]

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

Despite a list of book titles being included, I can find no evidence this language actually exists or is even covered by these sources, making it unverifiable. For one, it's unlikely that a language from before settlers arrived there, would be named after a state that basically didn't exist yet. Also, the cipher thing is suspicious. Also, I've done a search on the Uni library system. No research has been done on the language at all. Mgm|(talk) 13:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with notion that a Native American language would likely not be given a name that was ascribed to the region by European settlers in the 18th century. Oregon (toponym) states that although the exact origin of the name "Oregon" is disputed, almost all point to an English, French, or Spanish origin; of these theories, the earliest suggests an early 18th-century origin. The one theory mentioned in that article that points to a possible Native American origin of "Oregon" is not tied to the Chinook and also does not suggest that the stress would be placed on the second syllable as article title implies. Sounds like a play on the refuted theory that "Oregon" is derived from oregano. In addition to WP:V mentioned by nom, I suspect WP:HOAX as well and have added the hoax template to the article. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. The reference books provided actually do exist. I found all of the titles via Google search. Two of them are available on the internet as full-text versions and neither the word Orégonomy, nor anything similar, was found in either reference.
    • Winthrop, Theodore, Canoe and the Saddle can be found at the Library of Congress website here.
    • Drury, Clifford Merrill, On To Oregon is located at Google Books here.
There a couple of other problems with this article which show that it is untrue:
  • To the best of my knowledge, the Chinooks did not have a written language. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
  • Of the so-called examples cited, three of the five words are English words. The article claims that Orégonomy is "ancient writing". The Chinook could not have had ciphers for English words in "ancient writing."
•••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax, per the cogent arguments given above. Things like "Oregonians have formed a parity of the code" don't make any sense, esp. not given that this language supposedly happened before there was an English language presence there to encode. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew "Carter" Brown[edit]

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

Article previously PRODed, PROD template was removed without explanation. Player appears to fail WP:ATHLETE - Belize's league is not fully professional, and the claim that he played in the French 2nd division appears to be false (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Andrew_.22Carter.22_Brown for discussion). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Promise (The Larry Sanders Show episode)[edit]

The Promise (The Larry Sanders Show episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Substub article with literally no content worth merging, not even a meaningful plot summary. Sceptre (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons already stated. However, please make certain to redirect the link appropriately at The Promise to avoid a redlink. fuzzy510 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Jahnke[edit]

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

Alleged to have thrown a shoe at a Chinese Premier. Not notable (yet, if ever) in my books. Longhair\talk 12:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There already appears to be an entry for this event in the Muntadhar al-Zaidi article. -- Longhair\talk 14:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wen Jiabao or keep. I think it is best to keep a short page with Martin Jahnke's detailed info and link it to Wen Jiabao's page's shoe throwing incident. We should avoid give him too much coverage in Wen Jiabao's page. However, I do not agree to link this entry with al-Zaidi's page since he is from a third party country which has no involvement of the alleged issue he is trying to protest. Martin Jahnke is widely condemned for his behavior. All these make him substantially different from al-Zaidi. Bottomline is not all the shoe-throwers are the same Roc999 (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too many to list on failing WP:Guidelines...His name can be mentioned in Wen Jiabao's entry or Muntadhar al-Zaidi's entry or we can create a List of shoe throwers to world leaders, but keeping his wiki entry is a waste of bandwidth. TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man Enough[edit]

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

Substub article with literally no content worth merging, not even a meaningful plot summary. Sceptre (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not contain enough material to be considered a stub. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough information to justify keeping it, and no assertion of notability. fuzzy510 (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Things Past[edit]

Ghost of Things Past (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Substub article with literally no content worth merging, not even a plot summary. Sceptre (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Fitzgerald[edit]

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

Substub article with literally no content worth merging, not even a plot summary. Sceptre (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not contain enough material to be considered a stub. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not even asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Nip/Tuck episodes as a plausible search term and as recommended by the episode guideline. Why waste time at AfD for what should be an uncontroversial redirect? DHowell (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Lopez Part II[edit]

Sophia Lopez Part II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Substub article with literally no content worth merging, not even a plot summary. Sceptre (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Marooning[edit]

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

Substub article, literally no useful content to merge. Sceptre (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not contain enough material to be considered a stub. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not sufficient for its own article. JamesBurns (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Survivor: Borneo as a plausible search term and as recommended by the episode guideline. Why waste time at AfD for what should be an uncontroversial redirect? DHowell (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kurykh 00:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colón Insular Region[edit]

Colón Insular Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominated for speedy deletion as a hoax; I've declined as hoaxes aren't speediable but am nominating here for investigation. No opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This poorly-written article is apparently about a former Dominican province called Provincia de Colón and made up of the three islands mentioned. I had an extremely hard time finding any references to back this up. Does anyone have access to a good history book on the Dominican Republic?  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The population figure in the article is clearly made up or erroneous, since according to our articles on the islands, one has a population of 300 and the other two are uninhabited. Deor (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not finding any mentions of a Dominican province of Colón or of a Colón Insular Region through Google Web, News, Books, or Scholar. If sources can be found, I'll reconsider, but for now I have to recommend deletion per WP:V. Deor (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On my talk page, the author of the article asserted that the province did exist, but that the fact wasn't 'accepted' (User talk:SamEV#MRDU08). When asked to provide sources, s/he simply ignored the request. But then, it seems that in saying it wasn't accepted as a province, MRDU08 pretty much admitted that there really was no such province.
    I too tried all over Google. And I looked at offline works, albeit general ones. Also, I have in this decade read articles about the D.R. in encyclopedias and yearbooks of the 1950s (and 1960s and 1970s). Some of those articles, such as Britannica's, listed the provinces, but never one named Colón or even (translated) Columbus. Nor have I read about it in any book about D.R., on any subject.
    And yes, the population number appears to be entirely made up by the article's author ([23]).
    And again, the article is about an alleged current Region occupying the same territory as the alleged former province, but I've found no evidence about the existence, current or former, of either. SamEV (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The article's author also introduced entries for contestants from the supposed province of Colón into Miss Dominican Republic 1952 and the corresponding articles for the years through 1957. (Actually he seems to have been responsible for essentially all the content of these articles, which appear to lack supporting sources.) If this article is deleted, a closer look should probably be taken at the editor's other contributions as well. Deor (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. User MRDU08 is giving many others a lot of trouble, as s/he has made a ton of bad changes and created bad articles. I only found out fairly recently and began to delve into it, so I do find myself surprised that s/he went so far as to apparently invent contestants for a pageant.
Also, I should note that among the users who have challenged MUDU08 to source the Colón Insular Region article is a Dominican geographer, User:Pepemar2. SamEV (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per author request. Should be restored when/if reliable sources confirm that filming has begun. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Son, My Son, What Have You Done?[edit]

My Son, My Son, What Have You Done? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not only does the article fail WP:NFF, it's also a classic example of why the guideline exists. Filmimg has already been postponed once, and there is no guarantee that it will commence in March as planned – anything can happen between now and then. An standalone article is still premature at this point. PC78 (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the article creator. A Herzog/Lynch collaboration is for sure notable (once it exists), but it's true that filming has not yet begun. I was not aware of WP:NFF. Feel free to WP:SNOW this one if appropriate. Staecker (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries. :) Feel free to move the article into your userspace, then you can bring it back when it's ready. That way you won't lose the work you've done so far. PC78 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can just delete- I'm an admin so I'll just undelete it when it's ready. (I don't usually close AfDs so I'll let you do it.) Staecker (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete per Staecker, whose remark I find commendable.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now; Staecker should userfy the article and restore it to the mainspace if it is verified that filming will begin. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer Collection[edit]

Internet Explorer Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unofficial (and possibly copyright violating) installer for IE. Blowdart | talk 11:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of reliable sources. (Personally I don't think the copyright thing holds much weight, at least for the earlier versions. If you don't plan on selling or supporting a piece of software, you can't expect to control it). - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • aside Copyright doesn't work like that you know. Otherwise you'd have fun with GPL software too, that's not sold, but generally is copyrighted. --Blowdart | talk 12:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (rant) True, I know it doesn't work like that. At least with the GPL, it's actually accessible and copyright is commonly in use by people selling their work. I just can't stand companies grabbing copyright and not actually using it. Take Viacom for example: they continually hassle YouTube to take down videos of material they supposedly own. But there are several programs that would be lost forever if no one put them online (as a Wikipedian I abhor the loss of verifiable information in any fashion). If Viacom were to release videos or DVDs themselves they could actually make money of the fans rather than annoy them.
  • Delete. Copyright issues are hardly a consideration in whether this software is notable or not; otherwise we'd have to delete the article on The Pirate Bay and similar websites. But while this is apparently consumer software, there aren't any independent sources shown. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • aside Ah but Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders.. The Pirate Bay doesn't host works, only links :) --Blowdart | talk 15:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because it's listed (as Freeware, just like Internet Explorer itself) on all major software web-sites (BetaNews, Softpedia, Brothersoft, etc.) and on tons of blogs. Another reason to keep the article is because Internet Explorer Collection is very special: it's the only installer which can make stand-alone IE versions run on newer Operating Systems like Windows Vista and Windows 7. Finally the article has a lot of nice links to other relevant Wikipedia articles. - Peter356 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC) — Peter356 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete for the lack of reliable independent sources. Whether the software itself is a copyright violation or not (IANAL) doesn't matter for the purpose of notability though (see for example Category:Unauthorized video games) as long as the external links are removed, which I see has already been done. BryanG (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the article because nowhere else on Wikipedia is written that IE isn't that integrated in Windows as Microsoft says it is, and as far as I know there is no other way to use IE8 standalone, nor was it possible before to use older IE versions in Windows Vista and 7. Also I'm not aware of any other which has Conditional Comments, User Agent and Version Numbers all correct in every version. I think it's really important that at least the information that it is possible stays on Wikipedia. Otherwise only Microsoft's narrow "it's not possible, period" view would be on Wikipedia and I think that's a bad thing. Also, there are a lot of other software articles like this one, which all still exist. I'm open for discussion about improving the article. I (or someone else) can edit the article to address any concern. - IECollection (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC) — IECollection (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as original research and promotion. IECollection is factually wrong on several points, but I will address that on his talk page rather than here. WillOakland (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Internet Explorer Collection is a must have for any web developer. - Wpu09 (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC) — Wpu09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Note I didn't change WillOakland's comment's, but I removed them because 1. WillOakland was banned before and 2. he states that "it's" wrong on several points, without giving an explanation or reason anywhere. - Wpu09 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment removing legitimate votes is vandalism, pure and simple. And he did indeed provide an explanation as he said he was going to. --Blowdart | talk 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve/extend the article where needed. Deleting the article would not only remove the mention of a popular tool for web developers from Wikipedia, but also a point of view, which I don't think is a good idea. - SoftwareDev (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC) — SoftwareDev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • People who claim that IE is not an integral part of Windows are not expressing a point of view. They're displaying ignorance (or wishful thinking). In any case, "It's cool" and "It's useful" are not recognized reasons to keep a software article. WillOakland (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note But Internet Explorer Collection works, so it proves that IE is not that integrated in Windows that it's impossible to run on a totally different version of Windows then the IE version was made for. This has nothing to do with ignorance, nor with wishful thinking. Further I never said "It's cool", etc. In case you really do know something we don't know then please go improve the article. - SoftwareDev (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are wrong. I have already explained the things I know that you apparently don't at User talk:IECollection. WillOakland (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note You write that Windows provides a WebBrowser control, which is true, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Because that control can be removed while the rest of Windows keeps working and it's possible that a totally different version of that control can be made to work on a totally other Windows version proves that it's not that integrated, otherwise Windows couldn't be used without that WebBrowser control and what Internet Explorer Collection does wouldn't be possible. So what you write is (or may be) true, I'm not wrong. Internet Explorer Collection and utilities like nLite prove this too. - SoftwareDev (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure how software notability is established. It's available for download from lots of sites, but so is lots (and lots. and lots) of software. I presume to be notable it must be standard IT industry software (which it's not for obvious reasons) or in the public consciousness to the extent it's mentioned extensively on software news sites, if not general news...? - Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's established the same way as for all other subjects. This is an encyclopaedia, not a popularity contest. Notability is coverage, in depth, of the subject in multiple independent published works from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. To establish it, cite sources independent of the software's creator(s) that discuss and document this subject in depth. Ignore the irrelevant arguments about whether some piece of software is part of some other piece of software. Hit counts and downloads are irrelevant, too. Neither provide verifiable material for an encyclopaedia article. Notability is not size, fame, or importance. It's Notability. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paying no attention to the arguments about integral or otherwise nature of IE. :) Like George Washington's axe.
My question is really where the lines are generally drawn. Lots of software that might be notable that won't have a mention at, for example, http://bbc.co.uk/news . Quite possible for a version of Halo to miss the mainstream news but be all over forums and software review sites. What I want to know is if repeated mentions at reputable sites like Technet etc make a piece of software notable? Then, how many hits etc? 30 reviews at sites like Technet is nothing near as noteable as a significant story in the mainstream news. Using Google, it's hard to establish what notability is for software; and where to draw the line.
- Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Alman Dalída[edit]

Edward Alman Dalída (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Propose for deletion per: WP:Complete bollocks. Rcawsey (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G3) vandalism. - Mgm|(talk) 12:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pure, unadulterated bollocks. Note the two external references provided:
    • The first one is called "The Big Plot" and appears to be something to do with an on-line role-playing game.
    • The second is a wiki called "The Big Unknown". I think that describes the subject of this article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nizle[edit]

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

WP:NEO, No hits on Google » \ / (⁂) 10:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3, and per WP:BLP concerns. The article appears to relate the plot of Carrey's latest film, but reads as though the events actually happened to him. faithless (speak) 09:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Carrey Alive after Car Crash last week (02/04/2009[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jim Carrey Alive after Car Crash last week (02/04/2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probably HOAX but WP:News if its not. If it's not a hoax it should be in Jim Carrey article. It's WP:SNOW material and has CSD tag right now, but that will likely be declined b/c it doesn't meet the CSD criteria it's tagged for. Shadowjams (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Morphers in Power Rangers[edit]

List of Morphers in Power Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources to verify subject. I know it is notable, but it is not notable anywhere independent of the fiction. Also, this probably falls under WP:NOT#PLOT, but I'm not exactly sure. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRUFT. If page is deleted pls make sure that the link is removed from the Power Rangers navbox. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having little to no real-world notability. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content into appropriate main articles (sub-series of Power Rangers). JPG-GR (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JPG-GR. Information is interesting and notable within the context of the series , but it has absolutely no real world notability, so these things definitely deserve mention, but not their own article. I'd say make a new section in each of the series articles for mention of the morphers. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I didn't see any sources on the page, but I don't think I've ever seen so much detail on a page that looked like it needed to be deleted. Would there be anyway to merge this article with another page or pages and still keep the pertinent information? Chicken Wing (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you would not be able to merge and keep the information at the same time. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRUFT. There is already enough info on the morphers in the respective series articles. --Numyht (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and salt. — Aitias // discussion 00:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GDrive[edit]

AfDs for this article:
GDrive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
  • Requesting salt. Prevent recreation of page, until such time as actual facts materialize. Until then, going through this inevitable AfD every few months is an enormous waste of time.
  • An article with this name has been AFDed three times before, and all three times, the result was delete. The reasons used then still apply now.
  • This is an article about a rumored future product which is only speculated to exist. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
  • Verifiability. Reliable Sources. No Original Research. They exist for good reason. Without them, Wikipedia is baseless; anyone can write anything. This article fails miserably on all counts.
    • guardian.co.uk: Openly admits it is pure rumor. States Google declined comment. Refers to TG Daily website but doesn't cite an article. Mainly discussion of privacy concerns, not GDrive.
      • Searching TG Daily myself, the best I can find is Throw your hard drive away, Google's Gdrive arriving in 2009, which is entirely speculation. Somehow "www10" translates to "GDrive". The closest this comes is a vague reference to a forum post about something called "Google Web Drive", which isn't even the same name, and still isn't reliable.
    • telegraph.co.uk: Says the same thing as The Guardian, almost word-for-word. Again, notes that Google denies/declines.
    • beussery.com: Blog post that is nothing more than a link to another blog post!
      • Said blog post. Examining a bit of JavaScript, some concludes GDrive is coming. Sure, why not? Except: (1) This is original research and (2) Cannot be verified, as the alleged code was later removed. Please note that despite the name, this blog has absolutely no connection to Google, and is in no way official, and openly admits such in its subtitle.

(The following bullet points are copy-and-paste from previous AFD. They still apply.)

  • While there may be rumors about "GDrive":
    • The rumors are not notable by Wikipedia standards, as far as I can tell
    • There are no reliable sources discussing the rumors in any substantial way
    • Any attempt by Wikipedians to gauge the pervasiveness of the rumors would be original research
  • Even if we could find a reliable source on the rumors, I don't think that would constitute enough information to write a proper article.
  • When and if an actual, notable product called "GDrive" is announced/created, then the article should be created. Until and unless that happens, no.

In short, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this isn't an encyclopedic subject. Still.

—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its all guesswork, assumption, and unsupported rumour at the moment, which is not what Wikipedia is about. The subject of the article cannot be WP:Verified through the use of multiple WP:Reliable Sources at this point in time. Delete until such a time as there are multiple, reliable sources discussing this software as opposed to providing (admitted) rumour. Support any measures to prevent re-creation until such a time as the Verifiability policy can be met. -- saberwyn 10:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content, and salt per above. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt, not a crystal ball. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt since if this product will be released (and it's been rumored since 2006, if not earlier) the whole article will need to be rewritten anyway. No use publishing rumors beforehand. White 720 (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brais Eiriz Fernández[edit]

Brais Eiriz Fernández (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:PROD contested by article creator, the subject is a Spanish footballer with experience in the mostly amateur Tercéra Division, thus failing WP:ATHLETE (fully professional leagues of Spain are Primera and Segunda Division). Angelo (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Mr[edit]

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

Google search finds nothing notable (except for Mister Mr. Band from the 80s, which this is apparently not). Appears to be a myspace band page with a limited following Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. this appears to be a reliable source with significant coverage of this DJ. There are likely to be more sources, as he is presenter of early-evening programming on a major national radio station, however due to his stage name producing many false positives it will be hard to find them. JulesH (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one probably comes in under 'trivial' coverage, but I think it's worth noting anyway: [24] JulesH (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, needs to be cleaned up quite a bit. Fails notability in current form. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mr Mister 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a particular reason why it should redirect? The link that JulesH found calls the individual "Mr Mr". There was apparently a band called Mister Mr from the 80s, but as I made clear, this article is not discussing that band. Shadowjams (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was rewritten to address concerns, no longer any reason to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vector soliton[edit]

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

Blatant advertising, and likely copyright infringement (although has been declined as blatant by an admin). Also a non notable solution without regard to promotional factor. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Shadowjams, are we looking at the same article? Where is the spam? But dleteion as original research seems fully appropriate. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note You're right, probably not advertising (simply because it's completely unclear for what this would be advertising for). That's my mistake. However I flagged the article initially because it felt like it was copy-pasted, and the google search was pretty flagrant, although not explicit on that point.
    • Addition This is why I flagged it initially. The second "sentence" comes up with a direct translation hit via google. Search "optical soliton can be classified as two groups:temporal soliton and spatial". Typo and all, that hit is pretty interesting. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Shadowjams, I followed your suggestion and google the sentence of "optical soliton can be classified as two groups:temporal soliton and spatial". Nothing wrong was found. What does the "pretty interesting" mean? ismemeisme (talk)

I just saw a film titled with "Changeling," Don't try to be acting like the silly Captain J.J. Jones! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismemeisme (talk • contribs) 10:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer I may have been mistaken about which line I found elsewhere, however I was not mistaken about some of these extended sentences being very closely related to other works. After a quick search, I find the following two
  • The line "which is now known as a high-order phase- locked vector soliton in SMFs." is found at [25].
  • The sentence that begins "Vector solutions can be spatial or temporal..." is also found in similar form at [26] (Compare "Vector solutions can be spatial or temporal and formed by two orthogonally polarized components of a single optical field or two fields of different frequencies but the same polarization." to "The vector soliton solutions of this model can be spatial or temporal and .... Here u1 z , x and u2 z , x are two orthogonally polarized components of a .... of two incoherent optical beams having the same wavelength and polarization in .... of each colliding soliton with the same polarization and background field.").
My concern initially was that the tone of the article, and the way citations were done, and other little factors, suggested a lot of copy pasting into the article. My initial searches confirmed some hits. Perhaps some of these phrases are drawn from the field and you would expect to find elsewhere, but these are issues that need to be addressed because I believe they suggest underlying copyright issues. Shadowjams (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I saw this minutes after it was listed, and was not sure if I should speedy list it as nonsense. Looking back, it is. Delete as is, or rewrite if the subject matter is valid Keep as it is now rewritten.--Dmol (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable phenomenon. However, a thorough rewrite of the article is required. Salih (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I agree about the rewrite, but please specify how it is notable. This article is in dire need of WP:RS, and right now it is an incomprehensible conglomeration of copied material and original material. That needs to be cleared out. If this topic is notable, obviously, I have no opposition to it sticking around, but this thing needs to be cleaned up first, and before this Afd is closed. I'll try to help out (time permitting) but the sources would help immensely. Shadowjams (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search returns plenty of sources; for example, [27], [28], [29]. Salih (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in agreement the concept is notable. Cleanup and copyright issues remain. Shadowjams (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the person who creates this website about vector soliton.
Because vector solitons are rather are ubiquitous and generic in the entire field of nonlinear systems, it should be very interesting to edit this concept in this famous website: wiki. However, as I am only a foreign student with poor English, this website is not well prepared. However, I promise that I would improve this website as best as I can. I am not intending to advise something in this website but just want to introduce the basic concept of wiki. So due to my limited knowledge on vector solitons, I could only dare to introduce our works on vector solitons. But I hope other researchers on vector solitons would try to improve this and make more people know about what vector solitons are. Please give me more time on improving this and I would try to clarify something inappropriate. Wish you could reconsider after a second thought as i have delete and add something alread.
Best regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectorsoliton (talk • contribs) 11:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have simply nominated the article, and at many times nominators change their minds. You should address your appeal to the as of yet unknown administrator who will eventually close the discussion. The decision is not, nor has been, up to me. Shadowjams (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse the remark above: "this thing needs to be cleaned up first, and before this Afd is closed." But not to worry, if it does get deleted, you can always come back with an improved version to DRV. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS:I have rewrote the articles and hope you could give me another chance!
Best regards, Vectorsoliton (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC) vectorsoliton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectorsoliton (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A google search shows this is clearly a notable topic with several academic journal articles available. I see no reason to believe any problems with the article cannot practically be fixed by editing, and WP:DELETION therefore requires the article to be kept to allow that editing to take place. JulesH (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Just to address a specific point, nowhere in WP:Deletion does is there a policy that requires the article be kept. In fact, WP Policy explicitly states the contrary at WP:NOTCLEANUP. I note that it doesn't necessarily support deletion, it just notes that later improvement is not itself an argument for or against deletion. Certainly if the topic is notable it'd be nice to have an article, but the content has to be comprehensible and free of any copyright issues. That's the point of this debate, of course. Shadowjams (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with JulesH.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Keep].Thanks for your discussion and paying attention to this notable concept. Vector solitons are often available in many top journals such as Phyiscal review letters,nature and Science.I have added some inline referrences in order to improve this articleVectorsoliton (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Well referenced and is used in the literature [30]. -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have added details on some of the possible copyright issues earlier in the thread, in response to ismemeisme's comments. Shadowjams (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) by Lectonar. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friday the 31st[edit]

Friday the 31st (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've removed {{db-vandalism}} from this article because it is not blatant vandalism. The film definitely exists, so that CSD criteria cannot be applied. I can't find any references from a Google News Archive search and other searches, so this film fails the notability guidelines for films. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a YouTube film which should get online coverage, it's basically unverifiable through reliable sources. - Mgm|(talk) 12:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this youtube film. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm not convinced that this fan film cannot be sourced to show notability, with the right eyes looking and typing. I have tagged it for expansion and sourcing per just a quick search. It may be Youtube, but it seems to be getting some attention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable web content. Tagged accordingly. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaelyn[edit]

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

Essentially a dicdef, plus a short list of spelling variants. This is not an encyclopedia article. B.Wind (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, textbook dictionary definition. - Mgm|(talk) 12:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. There are plenty of articles on given names that detail the etymology, regional variations, etc, as well as a list of notable people with that given name. That being said, this article in its present state is not of that quality. I would not ordinarily be opposed to this article, but unless it gets a substantial rewrite to get it on par with other given name articles (Caitlin is a good example), I say delete. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is not a single Wikipedia article covering a person by the name of Kaelyn (if there were several, I'd probably dabify it, but not this time): Wikipedia search lists seven hits - this article, two to Kenwyne Jones (whose twin daughters are Arianne and Kaelyn), two referring to Kaelyn the Dove in a pair of articles involving Neverwinter Nights, one about an episode of the TV series Scrubs, and one for a roleplaying game (Betrayal in Antara). Unless you wish to parallel it with a dove redirect, there are no good targets even for a Kaelynn redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G3. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guangzhou Championships[edit]

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

Not exactly a hoax, but unsourced and certainly has crystal ball issues. Grahame (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snow keep, aptly enough. BencherliteTalk 00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong kind of snow[edit]

The wrong kind of snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable, poor citations Aurush kazeminitalk 06:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article about a notable event and its longlasting effect on British idiom. Sourced to 3 books published by mainstream publishers and one magazine. Unless you want to suggest something that's wrong with these sources, I don't see any reason to delete. JulesH (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is notable and variations on it is still used in Britain. Alberon (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- 'non-notable' is POV here, since I would say that notability has been easily demonstrated from the number of non-trivial references (including within the title of a published book!) 'poor citations' is not a reason for deletion -- if they were genuinely poor, labelling the article for 'refimprove' would be the correct course of action. EdJogg (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a wellknown phrase (in the United Kingdom, at least), and I'm surprised it wasn't used last week. DitzyNizzy (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this event and the subsequent usage of the idiom is still significant in the British psyche after 17 years. Also interesting as one of the few idioms whose origin we can reliably trace back. Thehalfone (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn[31] (Non-admin closure). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shaman King chapters[edit]

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

This list duplicates my sandboxed draft (which has been around for months, as opposed to this, which was created today), without much of the information in my version. The provided chapter titles seem to be unofficial translations. I notified editors of the main article of my sandboxed list the same day I created it, so the creation of this list was inappropriate (although I am assuming that the editor who did so was merely ignorant of my list). To that end, I would like to stress that I have nothing against this editor's contributions, and would in fact encourage them to contribute to my own list until such time as it is ready to be moved to the article space. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 06:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • So... your basis for wanting to delete is that somebody beat you to the punch in creating the article...? Because that's how it reads to me. Sure, its nice to be able to put a 100% finished article up, but it isn't even remotely mandatory. Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate your work-in-progress into this new article? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to wonder the same thing as the anon IP. Especially since it's policy that things don't have to be 100% there from the git-go. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is fine. It doesn't matter who put it there. Its just a list of chapters, and nothing else. Anyone could find that information and write it out. Don't nominate things out of jealously or spite. Dream Focus (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whats to stop you merging current draft into the article, either now or later? Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, I should have counted on the above responses. =P As I stated in my nom, I have nothing against the editor or their contributions (including the list), it's simply that my sandbox is better formed (though it admittedly needs some work too). If this list had been better than my list (which actually sounds pretty petty, doesn't it? And yes, I am aware of WP:PERFECT), I would have gone ahead and merged anything worthwhile from my list to this one. That being said, it was decently late when I made this nom, and I probably wouldn't do it now. Since I've taken the time to write this out, and carefully review my motivations for this nomination (I would be a fool to claim that I had no personal motivations for it), I've decided to go ahead and withdraw it - this doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell, and I'm too lazy to argue it anyways. And Dream, I'd appreciate more good faith from you. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Farid[edit]

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

Entrepreneur. Is he notable? Notes: the article about Farid's company has been deleted five times as spam. The creator of this article Famzz states that he is Faheem Mumtaz - User:Faheemmumtaz is permanently blocked for spamming and sockpuppetry. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This Article on Triq farid is perfactly Ok. As is is now a famous man and have won the bigest awad in the business world. Now after the edits the article is ferfactly fine in every aspect. -- famzz
  • I am here on wikipedia for the first time is is never blocked in the past. Some one else(May be our competators) used our names and farid comapny name to spam and get blocked. Even I dont know how to Appeal. If I was a spammer so Why should i use my name again? -- famzz —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. This version bears no resemblance to the one I looked at, before a flurry of editing activity, which also brought in sources I did not find. Thanks to all editors, and to Bdb for bringing this to my attention. Delete--article about a non-notable business person, whose sole claim to fame is an award from a minor organization. Poorly written and under-referenced article is a somewhat strange mixture of praise and condemnation; no matter whether this person is praise- or blameworthy, he is not notable enough for inclusion in WP. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep - I unsuccessfully prodded the article earlier. The article is dreadful, and it is only the latest of several dreadful contributions (some others of which I unsuccessfully tried to delete) regarding one of the interests of Tariq Farid. I assume that the original creator of the article is either Mr. Farid himself (although I would think that Mr. Farid would have better English) or someone who is very loyal to him. However, I came to the reluctant conclusion that the article deserves to be retained because it appears to me that the guy is notable (in spite of the worst efforts of the article's creator). Mr. Farid established a franchise business with more than 800 outlets, I found third-party confirmation of that factoid and the "entrepreneur" award, it is clear that he is a controversial figure for his efforts to establish a mosque and an Islamic school in the U.S., and I found other third-party sources about him. BTW: do see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faheemmumtaz.Orlady (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It . This Article is quite interesting and tell us that the spirit can must have in every man and now he is getting award for his unforgettable success and Mr Farid is one of the best-known entrepreneurs of the Franchise revolution. So i strongly recommended this article is perfect and amazing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandla2sandi (talk • contribs) 05:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Sandla2sandi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Orlady (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this particular single edit is singularly unhelpful. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Looking at the original version of the article, I can see how this discussion got started. There has, however, been substantial work done on the article, and there's really no reason to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdb484 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE THIS SITE*Knowing Tariq Farid, his business, personal life and his agressive business attitude, I can attest that this site is not come close to describing the man that he really is. In fact this site is a rediculous and inaccurate depiction of Farid. Farid is a [unsourced biographical information removed Uncle G (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)] ALL OF WHICH THIS SITE REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE. This site puts more credibility on newspaper reporting than legal court filings. DUMP THIS LUNATIC SITE REGARDING TARIQ FARID.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaowners (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Dark Halo[edit]

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

Somebody else is trying to delete this article but appears to be having problems with the deletion process. PatGallacher (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is alleged that it fails the notability guidelines for music, and is also unreferenced. PatGallacher (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with that assessment. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for multiple reviews for their album, [32] [33].  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree--first of all, they're album reviews, not "multiple non-trivial published works" about the artist. Small difference perhaps, but this would only pass by a whisker anyway. More importantly, though, is that a. Allmusic is accepted on WP as a reliable source (though I would take issue with that) but b. Metalstorm is a blog, and I don't believe it's accepted by the community as an RS. The fact remains that the article is about the band, and there is no coverage of the band. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:05, 7 February 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) 06:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would agree with Drmies on this. Apart from the allmusic review there is not much of note on Google WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Katherine Needleman. MBisanz talk 00:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trio La Milpa[edit]

Trio La Milpa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable oboe trio. Described in the text as "widely regarded as the most well known current performer of the oboe trio repertoire in the World", this is either a serious exaggeration or an indication that the oboe trio repertoire is very, very limited... The article lists only ojne independent source, but that's a blog. They have received limited attention[34], but e.g. the Washington Post article is focused on the project in the school, not on the trio. Other claim to fame is "the first American classical music group to tour Greenland". There is no evidence for them being "the first", and since Greenland is pretty small (some 56,00 inhabitants) and remote, the importance of this achievement can be doubted. 52 distinct Google hits in total[35] Fram (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Presuming being a musician in a major American orchestra is notable, then maybe merge to Katherine Needleman? I don't know - is Katherine Needleman notable? It's more notable to me than winning an AVN, but I suppose less soloists have you on first name terms. Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 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) 06:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Brigham[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. --aktsu (t / c) 11:48, 5 February 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) 06:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just his record no sources included. --Nate1481 12:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keigo Kunihara[edit]

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

Found no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). --aktsu (t / c) 11:47, 5 February 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) 06:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reference sources indicating notability. --DAJF (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems to fulfill our notability requirements for athletes in a straightforward manner as someone who has competed at the highest level of his sport (MMA→UFC). Searching in Japanese (国原継悟) may yield more sources. Dekimasuよ! 04:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He's only competed once in that highest level of the sport, and lost in the preliminary round at that, but that's enough to meet WP:ATHLETE by the skin off his knuckles. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep fought in UFC (lost) but that passes [WP:Athlete]] --Nate1481 12:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep concur that this is a technical satisfaction of WP:ATHLETE. Is this what's done with boxers? One pro match suffices? JJL (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question - While he barely passes WP:ATHLETE, shouldn't we also look for subject to pass WP:GNG, i.e. have "significant coverage" about them? I was unable to find any, and since he's retired and hasn't accomplished more it's unlikely someone will do a write-up about him I would think. WP should not be a directory with stubs containing only fight records imo. --aktsu (t / c) 12:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Achmed Labasanov[edit]

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

No significant coverage of the subject. --aktsu (t / c) 08:45, 5 February 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) 05:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as I wrote here, while he's passing WP:ATHLETE, he does not have "significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject". Passing WP:ATHLETE alone does not necessarily establish notability imo (as it says on WP:ATHLETE). Not to say your opinion isn't valid, but just though I should point it out in case you solely based your keep on it as I don't want WP to have thousands of articles mirroring Sherdog's fight finder. --aktsu (t / c) 13:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky). MBisanz talk 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trunnell Elementary School[edit]

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

A researched article, but simply cannot pass WP:N. The lead pretty much says it all: "one of 90 elementary schools in the Jefferson County Public Schools" Grsz11 04:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky), as is standard practice for schools not satisfying WP:N through third party sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a fixer upper contributor to the article trying to wikify the original content of the original contributor, there is some potential to the article, especially in comparison to some other school articles of the same category. The library has contacted me, and it sounds like a daunting job to find the microfilms and the exact citations for all the newspapers, so if the re-direct goes through then the library should not bother with the citations. I don't live in the area, but the conveyance with which the original author could speak of the school did sound notable but I cannot reach them anymore. If the article is given a re-direct let me know as the original article was created in category space and on several talk pages which is why the article was created in article space to clean up some other places and to let the original contributor new to wikipedia see it on wikipedia in article space. So if there is a re-direct I will plunk them on the relevant talk pages, so the article isn't in a funny place again causing concerns and consternation. The article space article was written to fix thingies happening. SriMesh | talk 05:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky). Best not to lose the history of this article and to merge what's worth keeping. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Did anyone notable attend this school? --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 19:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - already has sources that meet WP:ORG. It would be a travesty if such a well researched article was lost on some fine interpretation of a guideline. TerriersFan (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ORG, "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." All sources cited are either school databases or are local, so the sources do not indicate notability. cmadler (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it ain't exactly the Yomiuri Shimbun, but the Louisville Courier Journal IS "the 48th largest daily paper in the United States and the single largest in Kentucky" ... I don't know how that "attention by local media" clause of WP:ORG is typically interpreted, but I'd figure it means to exclude town/neighbourhood rags, not large metro newspapers. cab (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is filled to the brim with pro-Trunnell puffery: irrelevancies, multiple citations of directory listings and open wikis and the school's own website, gross misrepresentations (state grant money hardly qualifies as an "award"), and a good dose of (auto?)-hagiographical language in the Education section. However, AFD is not cleanup; the News articles section is pretty much a "textbook case" (hardy-har-har) of "multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources". The fact that it's one of 90 schools in the district actually works in this school's favour: it strengthens my confidence that the ten articles in the Louisville Courier Journal probably weren't all written by a parent who had a kid at the school, but instead by a reasonably independent and neutral journalist. cab (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to school district per ChildofMidnight. Punkmorten (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to school district. Per, WP:ORG, purely local sources are not sufficient to establish notability. cmadler (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Oppose Merge per TerriersFan and cab. The sources in the article are enough to establish notability. The argument of the mergers that this article fails WP:ORG is no longer valid per this source in the The Sacramento Bee, a newspaper that is many, many miles from Lousiville, Kentucky. This article is so well-referenced and sourced that it couldn't possibly be all merged into the school district. Keeping it is the better option. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge as nom. When I nominated this I certainly didn't mean to imply it should be flat out deleted, just not its own page. Grsz11 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry, but flat out deletion is what an AfD nomination requests. If you consider that the key content should be maintained but that merge is your preferred option then using the mergeto/mergefrom tags is the way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet how many AfDs end as a merge? It's just as viable an outcome as delete. The article, like any other that ends as merge, is not notable on it's own. It doesn't pass WP:N, so it should be nominated for deletion. If the consensus is that some of the information can be merged to another, then that's what the discussion is for. Grsz11 01:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just because others have used the wrong approach doesn't mean that you should also. Yes, a merge is a valid outcome for an AfD, but when your intention is to get the page merged then it is better practice, and saves other editors' time, if you use the merge procedure. However, this is not the case here since, as this discussion has shown, this school meets WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyogen Carlson[edit]

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

Non-notable abbot. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. And: Kyogen Carlson is to Zen what VanWinkle is to Gangsta Rap. Miami33139 (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources don't establish notability. I suggest you bundle Gyokuko Carlson into this AfD. Graymornings(talk) 06:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Influential North American religious figure. A google book search turns up 17 citations [37]; I have added a few of these to the article. Multiple, non-trivial reliable source coverage now clearly meets the General notability guideline of WP:N. Seeing that another editor has expressed concerns about Gyokuko Carlson, I will now add a couple of sources to that article so that it will meet the general notability guideline and no AfD on it will be necessary. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those Google Books hits all seem to be books by the subject, passing mentions, short quotations from him or citations to his books. The 5 Google News archive hits are similarly uninformative about the subject. We need more substantial coverage to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi Ando[edit]

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

This article was created as an autobiography/resume by the subject himself, an actor who has had one minor bit part in a major Hollywood film and small parts in other made-for-DVD films. Googling turns up only Wikipedia and Imdb derivatives, with no non-trivial coverage of this actor found in English or Japanese. It is therefore difficult to see how this passes the notability criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER. --DAJF (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Martin[edit]

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

Deprodded. I am not sure what the notability is. He was: 1) a pilot 2) received a Vietnamese service medal 3)Got a phd in physics 4)Knew an astronaut 5) Was a Lt Col. Am I missing something? Porturology (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Barely even an assertion of notability. The most notable thing about him seems to be that he won a national science fair in high school. Graymornings(talk) 02:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nice resume, not notable. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability given per WP:N. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He also won 3 Air Medals (higher honors than the Gallantry Cross). Anyway, not sure what isn't notable about a Vietnam War Veteran who became one of the very few "flying PhDs". It's certainly well within scope of the Military Wiki project, particularly since he was the last active duty squadron commander of the 15th TRS. Maybe in order to get a bio page he would have been better off to have been an American Idol contestant rather than a LtCol, Doctor and veteran? Kind of sad that is is even a discussion.70.43.179.202 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC) — 70.43.179.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • If articles have proper references and in-line citations, esp. when documentation isn't easily found by just anyone, it might well be that IF this person is indeed notable the article might not have come up at AfD. Don't blame WP for excessive coverage of nobodies who make it on American Idol--blame the general population for reading and demanding articles about them, articles which easily make for "References" sections... Drmies (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he was the only pilot to get a phd (or the only one of 5) I think he would be notable but "one of the few" is a weasle phrase. I would think that as pilots are inherently well educated and intelligent, "more than a few" eventually studied for a phd. My understanding is that the Vietnam gallantry cross was the service medal issued by the SVN government to all participants - certainly there is one currently for sale on Australian e-bay, with no takers, at $A50. The Wikipedia article on the Air medal says that it was the service medal for any combatant who flew against the VC and NV. Prior to Vietnam, bars were issued as oakleaves but the number of bars became so great in Vietnam that this was replaced by a number on the back.I understand his rank is the equivalent of wing commander - are all wing commanders or squadron commanders of the "cotton pickers" inherently noteable? As for the elist argument about American Idol, I think it is a safe bet that far more people have had interaction/know American Idol contestants than will ever have heard of Victor Martin - that is what makes them more noteable.Porturology (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Gallantry Cross is awarded to any military personnel who have accomplished deeds of valor or displayed heroic conduct while fighting an enemy force." It's important to note the distinction between the individual and unit citations. FWIW, I can buy a silver eagle on EBay. That doesn't make me a general. It's the meaning behind any award, not the price.
  • I don't know what a "weasle phrase" is. If it's what I think, please let's not make this personal.
  • Pilots indeed are generally intelligent and well-educated. However, very few combat pilots have PhDs. A quick web search will show you that, and naturally, it makes sense. Most people who spend that much time studying a field go on to do research and development in it, or, they teach.
  • During Vietnam, the Air Medal was awarded to a person who performed a meritorious achievement during aerial flight. Lt. Col Martin was a reconnaissance pilot in an unarmed aircraft (RF4-C).
  • If the idea is to provide information about persons who served in the Military with distinction, then yes, all Squadron Commanders of the 15th are notable. If Military history is important to you, then anyone who served with distinction should be granted equal opportunity to be represented for research purposes. Wikipedia is a repository for relevant information. If someone was researching flying PhDs, Squadron Commanders of the 15th, or science fair winners from Alabama, it becomes very relevant. The case has been made for "notability". He and his achievements are certainly notable. He's just not famous. I don't think that merits deletion.

UsualDosage (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) — UsualDosage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment. Please don't confuse notability with merit, and also remember that Wikipedia is a world-wide encyclopedia. Would you be arguing for the inclusion of any pilot of similar distinction who fought for either side in the Iran-Iraq war? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice resume, but being a veteran or a doctor or a Lt Colonel does not make you notable. Edward321 (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadat Husaini[edit]

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

I was originally going to speedy this, then decided against it as it asserts notability towards the bottom. However, searching Google finds no serious results either the article named person, or the references given. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Is the "MMI Publishers" that published his book Markazi Maktaba Islami Publishers? This is at least a somewhat notable publishing company, though this doesn't mean he meets WP:AUTHOR. A Google search for "Syed Sadat Husaini" yields very few results (and the English title of his book no results), but we should be a little cautious here, since he's primary a non-English-language subject. An Urdu-speaking Wikipedian might be helpful here. Graymornings(talk) 10:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copied from this page's talk page1. He is the Central leader of a very reputed Muslim organisation in India Jamaat-e-Islami Hind that is well known through out the globe. see

2. He is the former National President of STudents Islamic Organisation of India, again a well known student organisation in India. 3. The Google search is returning many links including links from many reputed news papers of India. 4. The publishers of his book MMI publishers [www.mmipublishers.net]and IFT Chennai[www.ift-chennai.org] are well known publishers of Islamic books. 5. Hi articles have been published in Tarjuman-ul-Quran [www.tarjumanulquran.org/]and Tahqeeqat-e-Islami[38] are both very respected journals in Islamic academics. So I dont think, this deletion will be correct Sajidhyd (talk) 04:22, 2 February 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) 02:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book "Understanding Muslim Leadership in India" (ISBN: 8188869058) contains a detail note on the subject and his interview. This is published by a very well known publisher and exporter of Islamic books in India the Global Media Publications (https://www.gmpublications.com/product_info.php?products_id=10251) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadathusaini (talk • contribs) 06:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion regarding Google serach is because of the multiple spellings of his name being used. 1. "Sadat Husaini" returns many items from independent sources like Newspapers magazines etc. His artciles like that on Economic Crisis is published many independent magazines and blogs. 2. His full name Sadatullah Husaini is alos returning links from independent sources like "Milli Gazette", Islamic Voice (known Muslim Newspapers in india and NGO sites like Vision 2016. 3. With alittle change in his name spelling "Sadatullah Hussaini' is returning around 2o links showiing his notability. 4. Similalrly Urdu search سعادت حسینی and سعادت اللہ حسینیalso returns multiple independent link.

So this should not be deleted and delete tag should be removed Intelhyd (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone who had held similar positions to this subject in similar organisations in the United States or the United Kingdom would undoubtably be considered notable, so why should someone in a country several times larger than those two combined not be considered notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (and withdrawal?) It seems the creator of the article has significantly expanded it since the nomination was put up. I have no issues with withdrawing this, but it shouldn't be long until it's closed anyway. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Rankin[edit]

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

No eligible for WP:CSD or WP:PROD, artist seems to be notable only at the regional level as per sources given. Probably WP:COI as well. §FreeRangeFrog 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only news mention I can find (other than the one in the article) is a brief mention on a press release about a student art show. All notable web hits are of a completely different Bob Rankin. Of local interest only; not notable. Graymornings(talk) 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN "There are no mistakes in art, only creative delays"-the same could be said of Wikipedia. I say we delay this one.Tractops (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Indymedia[edit]

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

Fails our notability and reliable source, as almost all of the sources provided are self-published, and the ones that aren't don't say anything that indicates notability. Google News turns up nothing except a minor incident involving the seizure of a server. The article seems to be mostly full of trivial humdrum detail that can only possibly be of interest to people involved with Indymedia themselves. That is not necessarily a reason for deletion in itself but it does indicate that the organisation has no claim to have done anything significant or noteworthy. THE GROOVE 00:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week keep. It seems from the sources (especially the link to the BBC article, even if the link is broken) that this organization was slightly notable even before the server seizure event. The server seizure wasn't what I would call a "minor incident" as it generated a lot of media coverage (the idea that the police can seize an independent web site's servers, effectively taking them out of business, in order to look for information that they have been informed by the owner of the servers does not exist is kind-of scary). JulesH (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I am not sure if this scrapes across the notability threshold or not, but if it does, the article is going to need to be rewritten from the ground up based on reliable sources. The writing is highly unencyclopædic to the point of implicating WP:OR and WP:NPOV (e.g. "Opinions vary on their success; for example, previous versions of this Wikipedia entry contained a vitriolic rant which, while ill-suited to Wikipedia's NPOV neutral tone, is indicative of the strong feelings that Indymedia can sometimes evoke"). At any rate, I'm not convinced as to notability beyond the server seizure (see WP:EVENT), of which there is some limited coverage by other indymedia outfits, and nearby news outlets (Wikipedia:EVENT#Local events seems to cover that). If this local indymedia outfit is notable independent of arguably notable events, why Bristol Indymedia but not Scotland Indymedia or Portland Indymedia? (But see WP:WAX.) Virtually every line of the article is cited based on work published by the subject of the article, and the sole independent source - a link to BBC news - turns out to be dead. WP:BURDEN and WP:RELIABLE require more of an article than this. All in all, while I could be pushed back into the keep camp, on evidence currently available, I lean towards deleting. That position is bolstered by my suspicion that even if the subject is notable, Brian Eno was on to something: sometimes the fastest way to get something to where it needs to be is to delete it and start afresh, rather than getting bogged down trying to patch up a defective version. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think you're right about the coverage of the server seizure being local in scope. There are lots of stories about it in media that I would not consider local, e.g.: [39] (a UK site catering to international audiences) [40] (a US web site, although probably not a reliable source) [41] (a London-based professional body) [42] (an Irish legal expert commenting on the legal situation concerning the seizure), [43] (an internationally targeted magazine). JulesH (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what to make of the register in this context - it's london-based, but as you say, caters to a general audience (I skim it once a week myself). A couple of those other sources, I'm really not sure whether they count as sources for purposes of notability (the Irish blog and slashdot), even if they might be reliable sources for content. Still, there's the reg, and there's the magazine you mention, so let's assume those two are good enough to establish notability. Even then, however - notability of what? Those two sources - indeed, every source you've mentioned - is focused on the singular event of the server seizure, not the organization (cf. WP:ORG (an organization "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage" (emphasis added))). I could imagine, therefore, having an article on the seizure, but to cover the seizure in an article about the organization (or to give the organization as much coverage as there is in this article in an article about the seizure) would be an WP:UNDUE problem. I still lean towards deletion of this article, I'm afraid.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. VEnue magazine has covered this website on several occasions - I will go and look up in the libarray when it stops snowing!. The REgister is a reliable source. I will look for others and do some work on teh article. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the Register is a reliable source, the particular story cited is a reliable source for the notability of an event involving this organization - not of the independent notability of the organization itself. Thus, el reg does not cut against this article's nomination for deletion. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Independent Media Center, where the notable event involving Bristol Indymedia is already mentioned. Other content of the article is based on primary sources, and does not assert notability. —Snigbrook 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Insufficient 3rd party sources. I have doubts over The Register being a reliable one. JamesBurns (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alexf(talk) 20:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HotBasic[edit]

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

I hereby demand that the HotBasic Wiki article, which I mostly wrote, and in agreement with fnoware, who wrote the initial skeleton, be removed completely and immediately from Wiki, which has showed itself to be an unreliable source of information on the subject, and in general, unable to follow its own stated policies. Should Wiki persist in posting material about HotBasic, I shall have to investigate what legal remedies I may have against Wiki. (HotBasic (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Non- notable, No reliable sources, COI, article created by programme author, 3rd nomination for deletion. 1st nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HotBasic, 2nd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HotBasic (2nd nomination) Jezhotwells (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I should add WP:PROD removed by User:HotBasic Jezhotwells (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Way too much self-promoted technology is on Wikipedia! Miami33139 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • In fact, Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. This has been AfD'd independently twice and deleted twice. This guy needs to bring something new to the table or go away. Miami33139 (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete - The author lives in his own world and distorts facts to his own way of thinking. Folks are just wasting their time trying to correct this article as the author will fight with you every step of the way. If the guy goes by Dr. Electron, has imaginary friends (HotBabe and Maj. Hogg) and a website that uses the word hot in every sentence, the chances of obtaining a factual page is slim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.255.86 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Naymick[edit]

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

Delete is playing at college level where there's a pro league and an Olympic Team (presumably the highest amateur (also) level) sufficient to be notable? I don't read WP:ATHLETE to mean that, and if it does, it's time to fall back on WP:BIO where there's no significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He graduated from MSU in 2008 and is now playing in Poland. This is neither the highest amateur level nor the highest professional levels. Fails WP:ATHLETE on these grounds. Nothing else notable about him that would justify WP:BIO. --Crunch (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crunch fuzzy510 (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE by playing in the Dominet Bank Ekstraliga, which, according to Template:Professional Basketball Leagues, is a professional league. I'd take issue with the comment above giving "now playing in Poland" as a reason for deletion - there is a world beyond the NBA. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article confirms that the Dominet Bank Ekstraliga is professional, although its author complains that many of the players shouldn't be paid the amount of money that they get. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given that the Olympics and World Championships have allowed pros for nearly 20 years Division 1 college basketball IS the highest level of amateur competition - particularly if you start at a top 15-20 program all-time. I can read what the standard says, I just think it's out of date. Naymick was no star at MSU, but he started on a perennial NCAA tournament team. The article stinks, but if we're only going by notability I say he's notable. Rikster2 (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of puzzle video games. MBisanz talk 01:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RevealThePicture (game)[edit]

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

How can this be notable? How? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, non-notable genre. No mention of this term in Google search. —Ost (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feel free to correct the name/title. I'm not sure what the proper/correct name is. Hmm, lots of hits on Google!--NakiBest

(talk) 00:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is one of the older genres of computer games popular due to their simplicity and because raster graphics were still a novelty at the time. I can remember one on the Commodore 64 that would reveal a nude picture of Samantha Fox (schwing!!). That said, the bulk of them are probably freeware/noname/unlicensed titles. There are also variants where you assemble a set of mixed-up puzzle pieces to reveal the picture. My guess is that this variant pre-dates electronic computers as well. SharkD (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plea: Samantha Fox? Please please please upload to Commons... Drmies (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a book that describes how to create such a game using photographs and paper. There's a description of two video games of this type here. Here's a description on how to create such games using Flash. SharkD (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Move to Reveal the Picture (game), Merge and Redirect to Puzzle game as per WP:NOT - I have definitely seen these kinds of games before, but I question if they need their own page. It was mostly empty when I previously voted. There is clearly more information now, but is the subject notable and verifiable as a real genre? If we create a page for this, do we have to create one for every generic kind of video game? I know that there are plenty of games and minigames of this variety and that they show up in Google, but I don't see anything pointing to it as a defined genre. The page itself is already getting broad with the various kinds of games, while simultaneously choosing arbitrary examples to illustrate each type. If the page is kept, it should have a clear, concise focus on the overall genre instead of worrying about every subtype of games and it should contain some sort of history from non-video games to video games, as SharkD proposed. —Ost (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Feel free to edit so as to add some pre-video game history. Yes, there are lots of video games, but we are talking just puzzle/logic games here, whose number of variants isn't so big... "Tile removal games" is next! --NakiBest (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess I should point out ahead of time that I don't think Tile removal games should be created either. It looks like you greatly expanded SameGame, but I don't know why you need to create pages for its unsourced sub-genres. Instead of creating pages with lists of specific examples of games that reveal a picture, expand types of puzzle games with a brief description of this type of game. Neither SameGame nor this article have references. Are there any that sources showing that reveal the picture or tile removal are actual categories for games and define their scope? This page is a novel idea and bordeline useful if it had historical perspective, but I question an original research article that appears it will grow into an ever-expanding list of various games that may reveal a picture when the goal is completed. Among scrambled image games, this genre includes any game that clears a playing field since a variant could have the playing field as image. It also includes games where [a]t first the picture is hidden. The picture does not show up gradually, but shows completely after a certain win condition is met, which would include myriad video games that present the player with a congratulations picture after defeating a stage or the game. Without sources to demonstrate WP:NOTE or that define to meet WP:VER, the gameplay section should be merged into puzzle games after being scoped to give a description of the category and common gameplay examples. —Ost (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are correct. Maybe the "at first the picture isn't shown, and is shown after reaching goal" games should be removed... Also, I think I'm gonna add the tile removal type into the main Puzzle_game article. --NakiBest (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Since the article is in need of referencing, you might want to search here since you might have better luck with old magazines than with recent ones. Regardless, the page needs a lot of cleanup and needs to be converted from a series of lists to prose. If both issues aren't taken care of I will instead suggest the article be merged into List of puzzle video games. SharkD (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there a need for the parentheses and capitalization? There's no article currently at Reveal the picture game. SharkD (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. I typed my first thought, but your page location makes more sense. —Ost (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that I think about it, I think I remember a "game" on Sesame Street where they'd show a picture of an animal or some other object and you had to guess what it was as they slowly re-arranged the blocks to their "true" form. Ah, memories... SharkD (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I saw a game on TV where they show a famous person's photo (actor, singer/etc), then gradually remove squares, and the caller/viewer of the game must guess who the person is as quickly as possible.--NakiBest (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was the idea behind the game show Catch Phrase and its subsequent UK version. Of course, who would've guessed that was supposed to be a snake charmer? MuZemike 21:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just like to add that I remember that the C64 game I played was a strip poker game. SharkD (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been looking around further, and this article's topic overlaps with several other articles: Guessing game, Sliding puzzle and Hidden object game. It might be good to merge or refactor them (except Guessing game of course) into a new article called Picture puzzle (it currently redirects to Sliding puzzle). I'm not 100% sure though. SharkD (talk) 04:56, 8 February 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 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sure, it's a fairly common mechanic, I'm not sure it's something that ties the games together thematically (seriously, kids' games and porn), and there just isn't that much to say about other than "here's a bunch of games that give you more and more of the picture as you progress." I'd redirect it but I'm not sure there's a valid redirect target, since it's not limited to puzzle games. Nifboy (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hashmi (Nekokara)[edit]

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

Article is possibly autobiographical/OR, little in the way of context and no sources whatsoever. I recognize that the information might be valuable as it seems to relate to a major religious figure, however without tertiary references it is essentially useless. Also the article is poorly formatted to say the least, and the author seems more interested in removing SD/PROD tags than sourcing information or structuring his work. §FreeRangeFrog 21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Previous AFD resulted in delete, editor mentioned information was offshoot from Banu Hashim. §FreeRangeFrog 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i agree with FreeRangeFrog there are not sources. RetroS1mone talk 15:56, 9 February 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 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry, I saw this relisted in my watch list along with a few others and for the life of me didn't realize that I was the nominator! That was dumb :) Thank you for pointing it out. §FreeRangeFrog 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, FreeRangeFrog covers it quite well. This might deserve and article but the current content is unrecoverable. If a reliable source can be found for this, then delete and create a stub. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kayden William Troff[edit]

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

Endorsed prod was contested, so i'm moving this here. The relevant issue is WP:N. The article is about a kid who won a speed chess tournament (the tournament may or may not be notable in itself). I can't find non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Firestorm (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN - --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm not sure. Troff's regular (not speed chess) rating is 1898 (enter Troff on this search page). If he is indeed 10 or 11 years old, that is a very high rating for his age. The rule of thumb is that juniors with ratings of age times 100 (for example, an 11-year-old with an 1100 rating) have potential; players with age times 100, plus 500 points (e.g., an 11-year-old rated 1600), are very promising. Troff, at age times 100, plus 800 or more points, has outstanding potential. He is tied for 11th-12th on the unofficial 2008 World Chess Live Junior Grand Prix Top Standings. I don't know the exact significance of that. I am not sure whether his achievements to date are notable, but it would not be at all surprising if he developed into an outstanding player. I am on the fence, but my inclination would be to keep the article - although it obviously needs more detail. Krakatoa (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article now cites two different newspapers and a TV station that have written stories about the kid in the last 15 months, and also that the United States Chess Federation named him to the 2008 "All-America Chess Team". I think that is sufficiently notable, so I'm changing my "Weak Keep" to "Keep". Krakatoa (talk) 00:49, 5 February 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 01:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficient coverage in reliable sources and multiple titles. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His titles are not notable enough (regional only). His strength in the game of chess is not high enough for the moment to be notable neither. SyG (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • His appointment to the All America Chess Team is national, not regional, and is described as "one of the highest national honors attainable by a young chess player". Baileypalblue (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reliable source coverage, sufficiently notable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By itself, a rating of 1898 (this is from the USCF website) is not impressive enough for an encyclopedia article, but gaining a rating like that at age 10 is highly unusual (Magnus Carlsen's rating at age 10 was 1716, and his exploits were already garnering attention in the chess community then), and the newspaper coverage provided in the article seems sufficient to pass WP:N. I agree with SyG in that the titles and strength by themselves are not sufficent, but the age factor here has garnered independent (non-chess) media interest, and does indicate an interest for an article like this on Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here we are four years later, with Troff an International Master of great repute and U14 World Champion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey F. Bell[edit]

Jeffrey F. Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Weak delete. WP:BIO of writer for SpaceDaily, website of questionable notability. No third-party references, no significant coverage in Google Books, no Google News hits that he didn't write himself, though UPI picked up some of his columns for redistribution. He does have an asteroid named after him, not sure how common that is. And I could be persuaded by an expert that his scientific papers from his NASA days raise him to the status of meeting WP:ACADEMIC, but this has been tagged since September 2007 without improvement, and the page consists largely of wikipuffery. THF (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really hate Me too type arguments, but I honestly think THF said pretty much what there is to say. Perhaps another way to put it is to point out that while there is plenty of cited material written by Mr. Bell, but I don't see any material about him. This is not a resume, it's a biography. It should be full of what other people have said about the subject, not what the subject has said. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. THF and RoySmith summarize the problem well. Citation impact seems to low, even though it is not negligible. It is also indicative of lack of research activity for many years, with the only reasonably cited pub appearing in 1993, and amassing a grand total of a little over 100 citations (Google Scholar) during the last 15 years or so.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of specialty stores[edit]

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

I moved this material out of specialty store, since it occupied the bulk of the article body to no good reason. I see no reason for this list to exist; it's too long and too arbitary to belong in the article body, but it lists only a tiny handful of the thousands of specialty store chains worldwide, it makes no attempt to be comprehensive in order to act as a stimulus for article creation, nor does it add any value over using a category to tag articles instead. Suggest deletion. The Anome (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--this is not an encyclopedic list; it serves no purpose that I can think of (other than what the Yellow Pages might offer too). Drmies (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To fully stock this list it would number in the millions and then what? Is there a WP:WP IS NOT A LIST OF STUFF THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN LIST JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE WAY TOO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS, BUT YOU REALLY CAN'T. (sorry, I can't keep track of all the WP:NOTs.). --Crunch (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to avoid list of department stores. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no! It exists: List of department stores :-C Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed that one at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of department stores by country KuyaBriBriTalk 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. There is absolutely no way that this list could ever be comprehensive. fuzzy510 (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or Merge and redirect back to specialty stores This list has a future, it really needs to define specialty stores more completely and specifically, or else split out each specialty to form separate lists. Doesn't seem to be be the healthiest article, but that is probably because it was created by a very unsympathetic editor as per nom. If definition of specialty stores is improved, it will pass WP:NOTABILITY very easily. An editor wishing to improve this article should actually read WP:NOT#DIR and WP:LIST; this list passes WP:NOT#DIR very very easily. If list is deleted in the near future it will obviously reappear, it's a good idea for a list, either in concatenated format as it is now, or as separate articles for the many genres of specialty stores. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect back to Specialty store. The nominator created this article by overwriting a redirect with content split off from the original article; then a few minutes later nominated it for deletion. This seems like an abuse of the AfD process. AfD is not for deciding article content. Whether the list should be in the original article or not should be discussed at Talk:Specialty store, not here. DHowell (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: if, as you say, the list has a future, it can't stay in the article itself, as it must then expand hugely (there are hundreds of thousands of specialty store chains worldwide) and thus overwhelm the article content. In which case, someone will have to move it List of specialty stores... and then we will need to have this AfD discussion anyway. In any case, a single list would not be enough to cover this topic. We would have to have a whole huge farm of lists, broken down by national and subnational region, in order to keep page lengths feasible. And at some point, someone would have to put them all up for AfD, per WP:NOTDIR. Or we could kill it now. -- The Anome (talk)
    • Agree completely; procedurally, that is absolutely the correct action to take in this case. Or just keep the article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This was not an attempt to get around the normal article editing procedures. I split this off from the article because the list had become the main content of the article: that is to say, the article was in effect a WP:COATRACK for this list. This is a dichotomy: this is either a valid topic for a list, in which case it should be expanded, and therefore must be moved to the current list-article title (which I've already done, and will persist if this AfD fails), or it isn't, in which case it should be deleted (which will happen if this AfD succeeds). Either way, the list gets the AfD consideration required to see if it's a valid list. -- The Anome (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Watch out Anome, because these listcrufters are sneaky. I've seen a list which was legitimately deleted at AFD merged back into its parent article, thus making a mockery of the wisdom of the AFD process. After this is deleted we will have to be vigilant in tracking down anything resembling a list of stores by specialty and nuking it, or this AFD will have been a meaningless farce. Benefix (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete honestly, if we allow this to sit like it is, we will get loads of non-notable specialty stores. While I like the list now, a category works wonders for situations like this as there isn't really anymore material to add to the list (besides maybe what the store sells, but that should be obvous from the store's name). Tavix (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it should be obvious from the article's title what merchandise stores like Supre, Charlotte Russe (retailer) and CSN stores sell. With foreign stores with more inscrutable names it might be more tricky but that would fall foul of WP:Listcruft #2, of interest to a very small number of people. Trivia like country of origin, date founded etc can easily be accessed merely clicking on the link to the article. Let's allow the category system to work its wonders. Benefix (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm somewhat concerned that people would pop up with a "keep" vote after 7 consecutive deletes. It seems to imply that these people regard other participants as imbeciles who can't figure out the right answer for themselves. This is obviously a case for ignoring all rules, whatever WP:LIST may have to say. Benefix (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy redirect. In response to this article's CSD#A7 listing, I agree it fits A7, but restored the 15 month old redirect to Aaron Swartz instead of out and out deletion. Unless someone thinks this was a horrible decison, this AFD is moot, so I'm closing it, possibly slightly out of process. let me know if this disturbs you. barneca (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jottit[edit]

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

Delete no indication that this website is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Roselle[edit]

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

Contested prod. Spam article about non-notable author, created by a very determined SPA despite multiple deletions; fewer than 70 non-WP ghits, most of them irrelevant; only hint at notability is a couple of minor awards in obscure promotional competitions andy (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Author of two books, neither from an established publisher, and no wonder why: one is in 11 WorldCat libraries, the other in 5. The other material is equally minor,but this is easy to quantitate. DGG (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG; per nom; and because there are no reliable sources that are possible. Bearian (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I speedied this yesterday as being a copyright violation of the author's self-promotional website and the self-promotional aspect still seems very strongly present. As well, I have learned to have a great deal of respect for User:DGG's assessment of anything that falls under the heading of library science. I examined a random sampling of Google hits and found them as irrelevant as the nominator. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nom due to edits that took care of the concerns expressed in the nomination. This article is still in need of a major cleanup, but it does now say what it is talking about. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make Compatible[edit]

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

Prod was contested through two separate comments on my talk page, both by the same person. Software with no assertion of notability. No indication about whether it came with Windows itself, with another package, who makes the software, etc. Unless such information can be provided, delete, possibly (but unlikely) an A1 speedy.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability, no context. Under most scenarios of what this might be, inclusion (if any) should be in another article. Bongomatic 02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For reference, it appears to be talking about this command which is part of Windows. I don't think we need an article about every program that ships with windows and this one is particularly unimportant in my view. JulesH (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, largely due to intervening edits:
  1. Answer to nom - That an article requires cleanup is not grounds for deletion. The bulk of the missing information you describe is now present in the first sentence, "Make Compatible is a program that is bundled with Microsoft Windows 98."
  2. Answer to Jules: Like many other transitional tools, this topic has merit as an illustration of the evolution of the level of backwards compatibility seen in these versions of Windows.
  3. To general complaints about notability and lack of context: The assertion of notability is missing, but sources have been provided from which it can be built. Again, cleanup seems more appropriate than deletion, and CSD certainly doesn't seem warranted w/o the presence of a copyvio. The notability issue has less of an impact on the article from a reader's perspective (ie, not a policy perspective) than the poor syntax and howto-like structure. The context issue is significant, but dramatically overstated by the nom - There's more than enough information already in the article to form a well-written stub LEAD. A major cleanup effort will be required if retained.

MrZaiustalk 11:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestion in your reply for why this should be covered separately. Bongomatic 12:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From? This isn't a merge suggestion, it's an AfD discussion. Got a proposal worth making that you're sitting on? A viable merge candidate would be interesting, if there is one. MrZaiustalk 16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; we have hundreds of articles on components of present and past versions of Microsoft Windows -- it's a vast and complex topic that requires that much coverage. A merge wouldn't be suitable; where would we merge it to? The article as I read it now demonstrates good attention being paid to sourcing and demonstration of notability. The nominator said that there's no assertion that this component was included with Windows -- here's Microsoft saying it did. Warren -talk- 18:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inspire Academy of Music and Arts[edit]

Inspire Academy of Music and Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete music academy established last month; no indication that it is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: Closing debate per WP:NAC. Article Deleted by User:Lectonar 11:24, 10 February 2009 Reason:(OR, unsourced, notability not established) Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz knee[edit]

Jazz knee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete no indication that this musical style is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 02:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax and lack of real context. Wikipedia is not the place for terms you coined one day. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Joslin Diabetes Center. MBisanz talk 01:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf diabetes specialist center[edit]

Gulf diabetes specialist center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing to indicate that this organization is notable, borderline spam. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--there is nothing here. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there is something, but it doesn't go into any depth other than saying that it exists. Tavix (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure--but allow me some rhetorical leeway... ;) Drmies (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever unique and usable content there is into Joslin Diabetes Center and then Expand. This does not warrant its own article but it is certainly not spam. --Crunch (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fixed the article, and see these pictures - http://www.joslin.org/International_Programs_1912.asp - medical center has got to fall in the category of notable hospital or notable medical center. And, it's affiliated with the Harvard Medical School, Joslin is the name of the diabetes center at the school, it is part of it. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, but Joslin Diabetes Center has its own article. This is a branch. Does it warrants its own article? What you have added could be covered in one or two sentences in the main Joslin article. --Crunch (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there are external links and Bahraini categories to consider, it couldn't be folded into the Joslin article; at any rate, after searching Joslin Diabetes Center on google images, the Gulf Center looks as though it is as big as the Joslin center in Longwood. Considering the financial resources of the Bahraini government, and considering that it's probably a part of Salmaniya just as Joslin is a part of Longwood, the article is bound to expand, see Joslin Diabetes Center itself to see how this article could look....if Joslin has an article as part of HMS and Longwood, why shouldn't we have article Gulf Center as part of Salamaniya? It is notable in and of itself, anyway. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gadegalleriet[edit]

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

Delete apparently nn project by nn artists. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oblates of Mary[edit]

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

Delete nothing to indicate that this group of nuns is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I believe the article is a mistake. The article's link is for the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, which is not an order of nuns. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlos and Pastor. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with Pastor Theo that this entire article is some kind of mistake, but I can't determine what it is. See also the initial creation of the article [44], which discussed an entirely different subject. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, name given in external link. Clearly noteworthy order. Cardinal Francis George is a member. Agreed: does not appear to be nuns. Fg2 (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or Redirect might be better Fg2 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Sussman[edit]

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

Weak delete. This unreferenced WP:PEACOCKy bio doesn't quite meet WP:AUTHOR. Has not been the subject of significant independent coverage this article is the most substantial of the 15-20 or so Gnews hits. Google Books hits are also trivial. Tagged since Sep 2007 without improvement. His best-selling backlist book on Amazon is #1,290,904. THF (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete in agreement with nominator. Gnews hits are all trivial, passing mentions, no in-depth discussion of the article's subject. Gbooks delivers a fairly large number of hits, but these are for books authored by subject; not a single one of them is in-depth discussion or extensive coverage of this person. Writing two dozen books is one thing, but having people (journalists and scholars) discuss them is another. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A variety of less-than-notable things, however great the variety, doesn't make for notability. DGG (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Metal (truck)[edit]

Heavy Metal (truck) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual monster trucks generally aren't notable. There is no substantial coverage of reliable sources and therefore fails WP:N. Tavix (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Insert footnote text here
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_10&oldid=1142645190"