Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 August 27 August >

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 no consensus. We owe deletion candidates a "speedy trial", so a third relist is really too much. Clearly no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 14:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

La the Darkman

La the Darkman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. There is no notability by relation, this is just another dime-a-dozen act. JBsupreme ( talk) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It's a keep. 2007 XXL interview [1] 2006 AllHipHop interview [2], brief Living Notoriously review [3] and badabing, WP:MUSIC is met. Extra extra read all about it: report of claims his debut went gold internationally [4] described as "major player" in Atlanta [5], tiny allmusic bio [6] plus numerous passing mentions of his (also numerous) contributions to high-profile releases, such as Pitchfork's rather unkind "almost comically bad" re "Overboard" [7] and "extraneous dross" re Luda's The Preview [8]. I think there was quite a bit more written on him circa '98 when wu tang affiliates were getting serious notice, but before hip hop had a strong online presence. 89.100.145.57 ( talk) 04:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the only significant coverage identified either by other editors or by my search is in highly specialized sources that stretch the definition of reliable. Don't know where consensus is these days on very specific genre-related sources (so I'm not opining here), but if I ran the circus, these types of sources would be consider reliable for purposes of verifiability, but not notability. Bongo matic 03:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment" Mentioned in Billboard on Dec. 15, 2001 and Aug. 8, 1998. The 1998 article mentions upcoming, unnamed album release featuring members of Wu-Tang Clan, the 2001 that he makes a guest appearance on a V-Ice album. The 2001 article spells his name La tha Darkman. Also in Billboard, his album "Heist of the Century" ranked #9 in the Middle Atlantic region on their "Regional Roundup: Rotating top 10 lists of best-selling titles by new and developing artists" on Dec. 26, 1998. He's mentioned once in an Oct. 26, 2006 Boston Globe review of Method Man's "4:21 ... The Day After" album, on which he makes a guest appearance on one track. More reliable sources, but all passing mentions. Some jerk on the Internet ( talk) 14:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ummm I didn't cite these sources at random, but searched them specifically as sound: AllHipHop's stories have been cited by the NYT, Newsweek, ABC news, Chicago Tribune, USAToday, Rolling Stone and so on and so on (including the Irish Times, the paper of record in my own country), and XXL is one of the premium hip hop print publications in the world, and perhaps the one with the strongest online presence. hiphopdx, though I did not rely on it above, use some established journalists and do some impressive original reporting and independent reviews. None of these outlets cover just anybody; they are excellent indications of notability for hip hop artists. It would be ludicrous to bar specialist media when considering notability in any subject. (The allmusic bio also cannot be ignored as an indication of notability, tiny though it is.) 89.100.145.57 ( talk) 00:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As I suggested was likely (as 89.100.45.87 above), Heist of the Century was reviewed in The Source #111 (December 1998), and the probability of other offline coverage is high. Third-party coverage is now piling up, and all that is set against it is bongo's somewhat plucked out of the air assertion that somehow hip hop publications are "specialized" and therefore "stretch the definition of reliable". I am curious as to why when WP:MUSIC has been so easily met, the AfD is stretching into a third week. 86.44.16.93 ( talk) 04:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Some evidence of notability and coverage. Including doesn't make the encyclopedia worse and it seems best to preserve it pending future events that will either establish notability more firmly or demonstrate that the rapper isn't worth including. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 State University of New York at Potsdam. The article is written in inappropriate tone and the name is not backed by sources. However, the topic is somehow relevant so the best option here is a merge to the parent article. Tone 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Potsdam Miracle

Potsdam Miracle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is pure synthesis and original research. No sources calling it the "Potsdam Miracle" found at Google news, books, nor through searches on Lexis or Westlaw. The two Google scholar sources doesn't seem like enough. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - even though it is referred to in : American Mathematical Monthly, 2003,and MD Shepherd - PRIMUS, 2005. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 11:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to State University of New York at Potsdam. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep CLEARLY noteable. On a quick literary search, The Potsdam model is is the subject of published works, and also turns up multiple hits as a reference source. Lots of unique google hits. Don't under stand the G11 suggestion - this is not a product it is an event that occurred. all this needs is some cleanup to wikify. RayBarker ( talk) 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't know if the name is the most appropriate (somewhat POV naming), but it's a mistake to say delete just because that exact phrase doesn't appear in many articles. The topic of why Potsdam has been successful (according to certain metrics) in mathematics when previously it was not is a subject of great interest and debate in math education. It surely deserves its own article, and I think it'd be a trifle odd to have a large section on it in the SUNY Potsdam article. For example, any debate about the merits of the Potsdam model would definitely not be appropriate there. But obviously this article could use expansion and cleanup (and possibly moving to a different name). -- C S ( talk) 02:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep.` - notable subject, verifiable. Mukadderat ( talk) 22:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Craig Bjornson

Craig Bjornson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable baseball player/manager. Never made it past the low level minor leagues in either job. No sources that aren't notes in a list of people that got jobs or blurbs. Wizardman 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Ali Hasan

Muhammad Ali Hasan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not fullfilling Wiki notability standards and created sourcing personal blogs and postings by an ISP suspected on talk page to be the subject of the article himself. Whitespider23 ( talk) 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Muhammad Ali Hasan is a political commentator in America and a potential candidate for statewide office in Colorado. If Wikipedia serves as a reference site, it would seem his inclusion is necessary. Personal insight about his 2008 political race seems as fair reference. I think the page is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.131.54 ( talk) 00:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 14:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Kennedy Curse

AfDs for this article:
Kennedy Curse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to consist entirely of original research. Based almost completely on one 1999 CNN article which doesn't even mention a "Kennedy Curse". Of the other 3 sources used in the article, two are not reliable and also don't mention a "Kennedy Curse". The third (from Newsweek) is used as a citation for events that occurred 15 years after the source was written. Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Sorry, nom, but a Google book search produces results immediately, the first one of which is The Kennedy Curse, by Edward Klein, published by Macmillan. Headline in The Guardian today: "History of the Kennedy curse". Case closed, I believe. The article needs editing: that timeline/list needs to go, to be replaced by a prose section based on the many, many reliable sources that can be found easily through Google already. Drmies ( talk) 23:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • It may be that reliable sources on the topic of the "Kennedy Curse" exist. However, Wikipedia's "Kennedy Curse" article has existed for over 5 years, and even underwent an AfD almost 2 years ago, yet still has not been able to accrue even one reliable source that actually mentions the "Kennedy Curse". I am not optimistic, at this point, that it ever will. Jayjg (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Kennedy Family the term was used in the book title creatively, and i doubt it advocates that there is a "curse" on the family. this article is just a list of tragedies befallen the kennedy family. a large, prominent family. do the math. i doubt if anyone of note will ever mention this idea seriously. if we dont have references to the use of the term "curse" beyond casual or nonserious use, after all these years, then this article isnt really about its subject. since the tragedies are all listed in other articles, no info would be lost. the term is mentioned in the article on kennedys, so redirect there Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect; it's a tiny bit better, as of today, or at least last moment I looked, than it was when I AfD'd it in '07. But it's still a matter of finding, for every entry, a reliable source that says this is part of a "Kennedy Curse". Really, one paragraph in Kennedy Family should cover the whole thing. Oh my, it already does . -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 03:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The subject is certainly notable. The information is verifiable. Simply because the article is currently a mess is not a reason to delete. Obviously, as books have been written on the subject, the potential for a full article exists. —  Music Maker 5376 04:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Rename Most people do not take seriously the beliefs that the moon landings were a hoax or that the American government planned 9/11 either but the beliefs do exist. As does the belief in this "curse". Ted Kennedy made reference to it in his Chappaquiddick speech. I suggest the title should be something like "Kennedy curse theory". Someone just moved it to " Kennedy tragedies" but who is to say which of the examples are tragedies? I agree with jpgordon that only examples with a reliable source referring to the "Curse" should be in the article. MrBlondNYC ( talk) 04:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    Yeah but, the article doesn't actually say anything about the Kennedy Curse; rather, it's a list of people alleged to be evidence of the Kennedy Curse. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 04:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I agree the article should be more about the concept of the curse itself with only cited examples in it. I'll help it along a little more. MrBlondNYC ( talk) 05:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep exactly as titled. As I've noted on the talk page (after moving the article back to Kennedy Curse), the "Kennedy Curse" is not a tabloid judgment but a well-documented part of U.S. folklore. (And that's how it should be described – not, as some may imply, as a factual problem, as if some being had it in for the Kennedys. "Curse" here is largely understood as shorthand for a string of bad events.) By well-documented, I mean that there are over 200 books listed at Google Book Search that include this term. Not only does this provide a rational for keeping the title (versus trying to dig up reliable sources for "Kennedy tragedies" or any other attempt at renaming), but it should also provide months of reading for anyone who wants to improve this article. Given the tremendous quantity of reliable sources, it would be absurd to delete this article. Just mark it with an "improve" tag if necessary. ~ Jeff Q  (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    Hey, about this: make Kennedy Curse a redirect to that section in Kennedy Family that makes mention of the "curse"; and then put the contents of this article into something like "List of Kennedy Curse tragedies" or whatever, and then people can argue about what belongs on such a list. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 05:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    The article has existed for over 5 years, and hasn't noticeably improved in that time. An AfD two years ago didn't improve it. It was tagged for improvement in October 2008, and nothing happened. It appears, as a result of this AfD, that a bunch of reliable sources about the "Kennedy tragedies" have now been added, but that doesn't help much, since the article is ostensibly about the "Kennedy Curse". In other words, lots of people have various theories about how this could become a proper article, but no-one seems to be able to actually make it into one. Jayjg (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - there has been long discusion of "kennedy curse." This has been discussed and not cooked up by anyone. Leave it as it is. Maybe Ted Kennedy brain tumor should be included in the list. 97.124.255.168 ( talk) 08:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC) — 97.124.255.168 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    According to what WP:RS? That's the whole problem with this. Oh, maybe Ted should be included. And how about Eunice? She got old. That's tragic too. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 14:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
There are a ton mentioning "kennedy tragidy" and "kennedy curse" written in many newspapers if you google one. Discussing how tragic some of the kennedy members are. I have seen plenty of kennedy tragidies discussed in many newspapers. Just google one. This is not as there is an entity called "kennedy curse," but some of these newspapers generally talk about the misfortune of the kennedy family not exactly saying they are cursed, but they are unlucky. Well the reason is Ted Kennedy got a brain tumor, which is not exactly natural cause. Anyone that died naturally is fine. Ted Kennedy is little tragic too because of cancer. But this also needs a source whether ted kennedy should be included part of the kennedy tragidy. 97.124.255.168 ( talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
A brain tumor isn't a "natural cause"? What? Was his brain invaded by aliens? Is it a symptom of anthropogenic global warming? Was his brain actually robotic so any tumor there would be unnatural? Did you actually manage to successfully search for "kennedy tragidy"? -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 18:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
It is "kennedy tragedy." I'm sure you understood what I meant. http://www.google.com/search?q=kennedy+curse&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=%22kennedy+tragedies%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=%22kennedy+tragedy%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Maybe to take the heat off of the title, maybe we should make it "Kennedy curse" instead of "Kennedy Curse," which implies that they are technically "cursed." Maybe it should simply become "Kennedy tragedies," but I think "Kennedy curse" returns more entries than "kennedy tragedy." 174.16.130.70 ( talk) 06:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep In the hours after the article was nominated, sufficient sourcing was added to remove any original research problems. Needless to say, the death of Ted Kennedy provided an excuse for the media to remind us of the curse, the litany of tragedy, etc. Katie Couric practically dictated revisions on last night's news. Geez, the 1960s was practically summarized as "His brother was murdered, he broke his back in a plane crash, another brother was murdered, he caused someone to drown". Mandsford ( talk) 15:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep This is is covered enough widely in mainstream media to be considered notable. Google books proove that scholarly sources are available on the subject. Himalayan 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps you misunderstand; nobody has claimed that the "Kennedy Curse" is not notable. We might even need an article about it. We don't have one. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, AFD then is not the answer. Hard work is the answer. It is the job of an encyclopedia to cover what is notable, if this is notable then it should be kept whatever state it is in and written into a proper article using reliable sources... Himalayan 18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Exactly. It might be nice to have an article on the "Kennedy Curse". So far, we don't. Even with the addition of several more reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    Well, thank you for withdrawing your nomination? You have just stated that the article you wished to see deleted is on a topic which you say is notable. I don't need to remind you, I hope, that AfD is not for deletion (though your comments above suggest otherwise), and in the time it took you to respond to all the valid keep votes here you could have produced that entire article on the notable topic. It's plain and simple: AfD is not for improvement, and the quality of an article is to be judged separately (not here) from its subject's notability. Drmies ( talk) 04:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    Not sure why I would withdraw it. While it may be possible to write an article on the "Kennedy Curse", we have yet to see any concrete evidence that it can be done, and we certainly don't have an article on it now. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but first there would have to be some reliable sources discussing the concept, and that would have to be reflected in the article. Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename List of Kennedy deaths, crimes, and maladies, because that's essentially what it is. Later somebody might write a Kennedy curse article true to its name. PhGustaf ( talk) 13:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    "Kennedy deaths"? Eventually they'll all be listed then; I don't think any of them are immortal. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Good news, I just bought a book on it for £0.90. I'll expand this article when the book arrives, seems a very interesting read... Himalayan 18:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's a commonly known term. I don't think it's unfathomable that someone might search for this exact term to see a list of tragedies that have befallen the Kennedy family. Although, perhaps it would be better to rename it to "Kennedy Family Tragedies". HarlandQPitt ( talk) 19:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Wikipedia is not a glossary of terms that people might be looking for. If they want to see a list of tragedies that have befallen the Kennedy family, there are many articles on Wikipedia, starting with Kennedy family. -- Crunch ( talk)
  • Delete C6541 ( T↔ C) 21:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Kennedy family and merge if there's anything to be merged. The opening paragraphs of that article already describe this in enough detail. And, as has been suggested above, at what age does the curse end and who decides this? Or how horrific do the deaths have to be? Just not enough for an encyclopedia in my opinion. Anyone who searches for the term will end up at the family article where they will find out much more about them than a supposed curse I would hope. -- can dle • wicke 21:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply

*Delete per nom and Redirect to Kennedy family . The notion of a curse is original research at best, based on one or two articles at best.-- Crunch ( talk) 22:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reconsidered. See below. -- Crunch ( talk) 15:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Keep This is a very notable subject and it is properly sourced. 72.155.236.5 ( talk) 00:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC) — 72.155.236.5 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Keep Wikipedia should not get into political correctness. The subject is in the popular folklore (like it or not) and Wikipedia will serve to provide coherency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consultant11 ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC) — Consultant11 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

You know, perhaps attacking every person who disagrees with you is not the way to marshal an article through AfD. —  Music Maker 5376 01:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The only attack here so far is the comment you just made. Not only is it grossly inaccurate (considering that I've responded to only 4 of the 16 Keep/Merge votes), but it's inappropriately personal to link to WP:DICK. Perhaps you should review Matthew 7:5. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Keeep - the whole premise behind the topic is dumb, but so is that behind the idea of a flat earth. In both cases, however, the topics are notable and knowledge of them is widespread. Malick78 ( talk) 20:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Sweet Puff

Sweet Puff (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A nonnotable neologism for a way of cannabis smoking coined by "a group of friends" with the only ref from urban Dictionary - Altenmann >t 23:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

SmartAction

SmartAction (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been speedied once and it declined, though it doesn't meet WP:CORP and it fails notability. Spam should not allow in the article and it is purely a minor company. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • comment eh, at under 100 edits...those being the creation and defense of an article I can understand why they are a spa...if there was variety in their edits at this time it would shock me. Coffeepusher ( talk) 04:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete promotional, and no 3rd party sources for notability of the product. AGI is certainly notable, and so may Voss, but that can not necessarily be extended to the product. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. It's quite a learning curve! I had added more information about the technology to make the article more "encyclopedic", but then got told that this information makes the article less encyclopedic! I'm now thinking that I'll remove most of the information and integrate the remaining notable aspects with the artificial general intelligence and interactive voice response articles. I notice the artificial general intelligence article already has a reference to Adaptive AI, Inc.—the R&D parent of SmartAction—but no article yet. So perhaps I should start an article for Adaptive AI, Inc. and shift the relevant information over to that article? Any suggestions are appreciated—especially constructive feedback regarding what to do (as opposed to what not to do). I'm trying to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As some other editors have noted, there is notable information here that deserves to be in Wikipedia, but there is extraneous information which I had uncritically picked up from the news articles and company website that sounds like advertising and should be removed or rewritten. Thanks, R001605 ( talk) 19:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Regarding the suggestion that the technology (AGI) that SmartAction created is certainly notable, but that the product and the company aren't notable: Isn't this a bit like saying the Olympic records set by Michael Phelps are notable, but Michael Phelps himself isn't notable? Either way, something here is clearly notable, so I would like to preserve what is notable, and would appreciate any suggestions (or direct help) on how to do that. It would be disappointing and discouraging if the first toe I dipped into the Wikipedia pool got frozen or bitten off needlessly ;-) Thanks, R001605 ( talk) 19:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm throwing an ignore all rules vote in on this one. While I don't believe that this article has enough significant sources yet, it has been steadily improved since I nominated it for speedy deletion two weeks ago. Now it reads like an encyclopedia article (well more than some I have read) and it is quite interesting in my opinion. ROO1605 has demonstrated her/his ability to take constructive feedback and significantly improve an article...something myself and many other editors could learn from. so while I don't believe this article will be up to standard by the time this AFD is over, I think it has the potential to be a good article...hence the WP:IAR vote. Coffeepusher ( talk) 02:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thank you, Coffeepusher, for your vote of confidence! It means a lot to me, and gives me new energy and motivation to continue improving my Wikipedia editing skills. I found, and added, two third-party references that I think relate to notability of the product: SoCalTech.com is the leading high tech news site for Southern California tech companies. It has two recent mentions of major new customers signed by SmartAction: Motivational Fulfillment & Logistics and Technology for Business. Considering that it is hard for new products to enter an established market, I doubt that these two companies would have signed up for SmartAction's IVR product if it wasn't "notable". But I'm not yet sufficiently experienced with Wikipedia's standards to know whether these two references qualify as notable mentions of the product. I'd appreciate any feedback. R001605 ( talk) 17:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 23:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • delete no evidence of notability/achievements/recognition presented. Mukadderat ( talk) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The author, company, and book should be included in some form as they have been covered in reliable independent sources. It's not huge notability, but it's enough. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • This source has significant coverage and should be added. I didn't see it in the refs section [9]. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you, ChildofMidnight, I've added the reference. R001605 ( talk) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Mukadderat, the article lists several independent, third-party references. At least three of these (NewScientist, KurzweilAI, and Publico.es) are indisputably significant news sources, so the fact that they consider the company and its products important enough to feature them, is a strong indication of notability. As far as achievements and recognition are concerned, the strongest evidence is significant customers willing to pay real money for the product. A quick Google search immediately brought up two significant customers ( Motivational Fulfillment & Logistics (MFALS) and Technology for Business) and I'm sure a more thorough search would produce more. MFALS has been in business since 1977 and counts some of the world's largest companies among its clients: Walmart, General Motors, Walt Disney, Sears, American Express, Citibank, Home Depot, and many others. Here's what Hal Altman, MFALS founder and CEO, says about SmartAction and its products: “Up until we acquired the SmartAction solution we didn’t offer our clients the option to answer their customer-service calls with an IVR. We have been giving a ‘human touch’ service since we launched our business in 1977, but many of our clients asked us to lower their costs by handling routine customer-service calls with an automated self-service solution. We chose SmartAction because of their superior technical capabilities, highly competitive prices and, above all, total commitment to give us headache-free service from A to Z.” That sounds like "recognition/achievement" to me—not bad for a company that started commercial operations barely six months ago in a tough economic environment. R001605 ( talk) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep More depth in the sources would be better, but there is certainly independent notice. This might work better as a section at Peter Voss, though. - 2/0 ( cont.) 14:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 22:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Kayani Mughal

Kayani Mughal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

absence of word mughal kiyani in most of references and references given in article didnt matches with real context and references are misused — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitor ( talk • contribs)

the actual point is about the article the references tells nothing about mughal kiyani (the title of article) insteadly it talks about kiyanis history or mughals history seperatly note mughals is a separate tribe mainly refer to mongols and kiyani is a surname used by ghakkars in rawalpindi region of pakistan which claims to be a persian tribe due to their claim of descendents of ancient kianian kings of iran and also by some tribes in afghanistan and iran who claim to be descents of ancient semi mythilogical kianian kings mughals and kiyanis are seperate words used by seperate groups of peaple any historical document didnt tells us any relation between them the main question was about mughal kiyani any reference given by writer of article didnt contain the word mughal kiyani and didnt talks about mughal kiyani that what is its history what is a valid prove of mughal kiyani being a real mughal clan as writer has written it as a clan of mughal tribe the writer has given invalid and false proves about them i think the basic purpose of wikipedia is to provide a valid and true information based on valid and sufficiant proves as i say above most of information given in article didnt discuss the real topic mughal kiyani and which disuss is not valid or which proves that mughal kiyani is a clan so my request was that delete this article which is based on falses references and the information given about kiyanis and mughals should be moved to their seperate articles(kiyani,ghakkar and mughal) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.45.99.193 ( talk • contribs)

according to wikipedia deletion policy that Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed in the light of above reasons for deletion in wikipedia deletion policy this article should be deleted because this article(kiyani mughal) didnt attributes to reliable sources original theories and conclusions and this article is also a hoaxe and all attempts to find a reliable sources to verify this article have failed these all reason are applying on article mughal kiyani and information written in article about mughal kiyani so this should be delete as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitor ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply

mr metropolian90 what should i do to convinced u I was talking about the articles main topic mughal kiyani the writer of the article divides it in to 3 paragraphs with following headlines history ,other kiyani tribes and diaspora in history paragraph in starting lines and in dispora he writes about mughal kiyanis in which only in history paragraph he gives 3 references about mughal kiyanis most of references are misused and didnt proves or gives us a valid information for examples as writer gives a reference from punjab caste p212 Others say that the Mughals proper, and especially the Chughattas and Qizilbashes are Kayanis

the full line or paragraph is as I have not been able to obtain saticfactory information regarding this word(kiyani).some says the city of kayan was the capital of kai kayus kai kusru and kai kubad and some says that the ghakkars callthemselves kiyani because they claim descent from these three kings.Others say that the Mughals proper, and especially the Chughattas and Qizilbashes are Kayanis and that the ghakkars call them selves canani or cananits because they claim descent from jacob or yacub who lived in canaan and that is the word which has been misread as kiyani( http://www.archive.org/stream/panjabcastes00ibbe#page/n7/mode/2up)

first of all author of the book(punjab castes) was not sure about above information which is based on different opinions secondly it didnt contain the word mughal kiyani main topic of the article or gives us a direct wording or use of word mughal kiyani or hteir existences as a clan the writer just misused the reference similarly other 2 references are also miused eg references from punjabi muslamans p94 and punjab cheifs p216 given by writer was not founded in original text Media:http://www.archive.org/stream/punjabimusalmans00wikeuoft#page/94/mode/1up http://www.apnaorg.com/books/punjab-chiefs/ as u know that any information without acceptable or valid references is considered as invaild and anyone cannot proved it without references.as i say above that mughal kiyani is the main topic or name of article but its reference from real context didnt gives us a valid or realiable information or even didnt talks about the topic about the main topic mughal kiyani so it should be deleted under the deletion policy of wikipedia the paragraph other kiyani tribes mainly talks about kianis history and mughals history separatly and didnt gives or talk about mughal kiyani as seprate articles of mughals and kiyanis were given so this information should be written or moved to these articles separatly as information given about mughals should be moved to mughal article and kiyani information should be moved to kiyani article even now if u were not convinced then plz my freind tell me how u will convinced for its deletion according to wikipedia deletion policy that Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed this article should be deleted because there is not a single reliable source which verify this article and i didnt found a single reliable source which confrimed it so plz my friend delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitor ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

i think my friend dgg u didnt understand what i want to say or what was my point for suggesting this article for deletion.in article writer mainly writes about the topic of mughal kiyani which is also the title of article it simply means that the article is about mughal kiyani as u know that any information is not considered as proveable or acceptable without realiable references or sources in wikipedia in article mughal kiyani writer writes on his own giving wrong references if we would found any realiable reference about mughal kiyani we would discuss it but there is not a single realiable source which even talks about the mughal kiyani or given information in the article u will even not able to found a single realiable source regarding the article. main point is that there is not a single realiable source which confrim the information given in article or even talks about the article so it should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.100.122 ( talk) 09:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 23:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - these clan/tribal articles are all horrific OR magnets, exposed to bitter feuds about whether some clan was Pathan or Moghul or whatever; whether their apical ancestors really existed or were just mythical; and so on and so forth. Its the same story every time, and these articles are invariably based (often exclusively, as here too) on 100+ year old British army-diary sources. Even then, only very few of these clan articles are sufficiently well documented for anything more than a line or two, and most could in fact be redirects to the article on the next higher tribal unit (e.g. Kayani Mughal => Mughal (tribe)#Kayani). In short, this article is really just another representative of the wild and wooly Central Asian tribalism (tribes and subtribes and ethnicities and subethnicities and clans and subclans and subsubsubsub-clans).
That's not per-se a reason for delete though. The fact that at least one source identifies the "Kiáni" as a "clan" of "Moghal" is (IMO) sufficient evidence that such a clan exists and that the title "Kayani Mughal" is not a hoax.
While I am in agreement with the nominator that the sources are being abused (what is the "Other Kayani tribes" coatrack doing there?), that is not sufficient reason to delete the article either.
The nominator appears to be familiar with tribal makeups in the region, perhaps even with the Mughal tribe/Kayani clan in particular, so I suggest that he/she cleanup the article (remove the problematic material) rather that ask for the article to be deleted. -- Fullstop ( talk) 10:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep but keep it stubby until more reliable information can be found. Some of the old content sounds like the transcript of a speech given in front of a campfire. - Richfife ( talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 schools in Trafford. Tone 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Cherry Manor Primary School

Cherry Manor Primary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 23:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • You can't be serious - you're suggesting it's notable for closing? Schools close all the time. And in any case, you're incorrect - it came out of special measures (meaning it improved), and was closed for falling pupil numbers. Any school with numbers well below its population level are closed, as they become too expensive to maintain. Majorly talk 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Do you have any reliable third party sources to suggest notability of the school, when it was actually open? Because this just looks like a case of "It's notable because it closed". Which isn't logical. Majorly talk 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • "Consider these views with discretion." And in any case I'm not referring to any article, which is precisely what that essay is about. It's whether other articles exist. I'm simply discussing real life here. Majorly talk 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Woodley, Greater Manchester#Education. Tone 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Greave School

Greave School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Majorly talk 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 schools in Stockport#Primary schools. Tone 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Peacefield Primary School

Peacefield Primary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Schools get awards all the time, it's nothing special. Majorly talk 22:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Werneth, Greater Manchester. Tone 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Werneth Primary School

Werneth Primary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Walkden#Education. Tone 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

St Pauls Crompton Street

St Pauls Crompton Street (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Taking this case for another example, you neither engaged in discussion at the article's talk page nor contacted the article's original author. These AFD nominations seem to have been a reflex reaction to removal of the prods. Tsk. Colonel Warden ( talk) 00:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Are you deliberately trying to miss the point here, or are you just going to rudely "tsk" at me? Nobody is going to be watching the talk page - look at how many people edited the article. The original creator last edited in 2008. Both of those options are out. I bring it here for discussion amongst more people. I believe it fails WP:N horribly - it asserts no notability whatsoever. Majorly talk 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 schools in Bury. Tone 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

St John's CofE Primary School

AfDs for this article:
St John's CofE Primary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Golf Shopping Network

Golf Shopping Network (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very narrowly available TV channel, no sources found at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 schools in Oldham. Tone 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Greenhill Primary School (Oldham)

Greenhill Primary School (Oldham) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 schools in Trafford. Tone 19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Gorse Hill Primary School

Gorse Hill Primary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 schools in Trafford. Tone 19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Flixton Junior School

Flixton Junior School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Jеwitt, аrthur (1772–1852)

Jеwitt, аrthur (1772–1852) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability of this person is not clear to me. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of schools in Bury. Spartaz Humbug! 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Greenhill Primary School

Greenhill Primary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Neither of the sources assert any actual notability. One is about a "Golden Shoe" prize, and the other briefly mentions the school among others. Both are reports by the local newspaper. This is hardly significant coverage to suggest notability. Majorly talk 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It's enough to show that the article is not a hopeless case and so your nominations have been too hasty. Our deletion policy makes it clear that articles should not be nominated without making some effort to engage with the topic. There doesn't seem to be the slightest case for deletion here as, at the very least, we can consolidate this material into a larger article about the region's schools. Colonel Warden ( talk) 23:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree, two insignificant mentions in the local newspaper shows no notability. The fact that this school isn't discussed significantly in reliable third party sources is a very good reason for deletion. Perhaps not to you, but as I said, we disagree. There's nothing of any importance in this article that's worth merging anywhere else. If I had thought merging was suitable, I'd have suggested it. Majorly talk 23:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

William Scoffin

AfDs for this article:
William Scoffin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability of this person is not clear to me. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a probable copyvio of the Oxford DNB entry. (I'm not going to subscribe to the thing to make sure; but the word counts seem to match, and the form of the lemma is a giveaway.) Deor ( talk) 01:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I guess I'll have to change my !vote to weak keep on the basis of CaliforniaAliBaba's rewrite, though I hate to do so. I'm of the opinion that when an article begins its life as a copyvio in toto, it should be wiped out; I don't like to see copyvios hanging around even in article histories. CAB could have let this be deleted, then created a new article (at a correctly styled title) with his/her text. I fail to comprehend what moving plus supplying completely new text gains us here. Deor ( talk) 13:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I vaguely recall the procedure being to oversight it out of the history only if the copyright owner asked, and doing nothing at all otherwise. Has that changed recently? I haven't been paying attention too closely, to be honest. cab ( talk) 10:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
        • I was just grousing. I'm not saying that you did anything wrong, exactly; I just don't see the point. Instead of moving this article, along with the copyvio in its history, why not simply create your new article at the proper title? Deor ( talk) 19:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep restubbed based on an 1825 source. An entry in the DNB is a clear indicator of notability. cab ( talk) 04:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per being in the DNB. Whatever that is. I trust CAB that it's a clear indicator of notability. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • keep as rewritten, but I would agree that the closing admin must delete the initional copyvio version and notify user:cab for recreation. Mukadderat ( talk) 23:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Ham Mukasa

Ham Mukasa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability of this person is not clear to me. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Transnational Giving Europe

Transnational Giving Europe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization, fails WP:CORP, Gnews search produces all of 3 hits. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lake Worth Lagoon. merge makes sense since its going to be an obvious redirect anyway Spartaz Humbug! 19:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Muck Monster

Muck Monster (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's non-notable event. Someone saw a wake on the surface of the water and called it a "muck monster". Donald Albury 22:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment It was mentiond on The Late Show with David Letterman as a Top-10 list: "The Top-10 Questions Received by Palm Beach County Authorities about the Muck Monster." [14] -- Auric ( talk) 14:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What are the arguments against a merge of something that has been reported on by numerous newspapers and seems, to me at least, to be worth mentioning in the article on the lagoon where it occured? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 15:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Weak Merge Not notable by itself. Not opposed to full delete, but merge makes sense. Whitespider23 ( talk) 19:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1998 Little League World Series. Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

1998 Little League World Series Champions

1998 Little League World Series Champions (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: The players on the team fail WP:N and this team specifically should not have their own separate page. If anything this should be merged with 1998 Little League World Series but even then I think that's asking too much. If you look at the page edit history, you'll see that the moniker Cardone22 created the page, and one of the players listed on the roster was a child named Christopher Cardone. It's biased and trivial anyway. Jrcla2 talk 22:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Verifiable information that is notable can be placed in 1998 Little League World Series. Location ( talk) 22:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • delete and merge the nickname information, if verifiable, with 1998 Little League World Series. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens ( talk) 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge some of this to 1998 Little League World Series, which has plenty of room. The roster seems worthwhile to have, and the names of the team members can be verified at LittleLeague.org Zagalejo ^^^ 03:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Question: How is the roster notable? The only player that is worth keeping after the merge is Todd Frazier, who has his own article for other reasons. I'm just wondering because simply being able to verify the official roster list doesn't mean it's notable. Jrcla2 talk 04:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Well, I just think depth of coverage is a good thing. Individual elements within an article don't fall under the scope of WP:N. Granted, most of the names won't mean much to anyone outside of New Jersey, but I don't understand why removing such information would improve Wikipedia. A LLWS roster is not substantially different than the detailed coverage we provide at our Olympics articles. I'm sure most of the names at Table tennis at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's singles are meaningless to the vast majority of our readers, but they're there, anyway! And I think that's pretty cool. Zagalejo ^^^ 04:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
        • I understand that parts of whole articles most often cannot stand alone as notable. I guess I am just seeing your argument, but from the other side: why would keeping such trivial information improve Wikipedia? They're all essentially non-notable kids other than having been on a roster that won the LLWS. And, not to sound like a jerk because that is not my intention at all in saying this, but your argument about the table tennis players doesn't really apply here because all of those men are Olympians (even though it is a less popular sport). Each one of those table tennis Olympians can rightfully have their own WP page if someone felt like making them, whereas the kids on the roster on this AfD page could not. Also, and I'm aware this isn't going to factor into whether this article should be deleted or not, but I'm from New Jersey and none of those names mean anything to us either, unless you're from Toms River. Just saying. Jrcla2 talk 06:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge roster to 1998 Little League World Series. Just because most of the individual players don't warrant individual articles is no reason to exclude verifiable information on the team roster. Many articles mention individuals that are not individually notable for their own articles. And the guidelines for lists explcitily permit lists whose reason for being is that they include subjects that would not be notable enough for their own articles. Rlendog ( talk) 16:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think that a team that has won the Little League World Series is easily notable enough for its own article, given the recognition in books and the media of that annual event. Merger is also an option, although I'm not sure how long a paragraph about the team would last within an article about the series itself. If kept, then move the title to something that doesn't make a secret of Toms River, New Jersey. Mandsford ( talk) 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. I don't believe an individual team is notable. Secret account 16:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Even if WP:PROF may not be completely met, there is still some WP:N here so I am closing this as a keep (and edit, sure). Tone 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Gary Schwartz

Gary Schwartz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gary Schwartz is not notable according to WP:PROF and there is no evidence of notability under WP:GNG Simonm223 ( talk) 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

This is debate from talk page:

  • 1 The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

No.

  • 2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

No AFAIK.

  • 3 The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

No; unless being the director of the VERITAS project at University of Arizona counts. I would say no.

  • 4 The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

No.

  • 5 The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

No; he served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic. None of these are a named/personal chair appointment. No indication of "Distinguished Professor" appointment.

  • 6 The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.

Depends, if his position as director of VERITAS counts for this category than yes, if not than no.

  • 7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

No.

  • 8 The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.

No.

  • 9 The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

No.

So basically Schwartz's notability hinges on the importance of his directorship of VERITAS at U of Arizona. I am not informed enough on that program to comment. Discuss. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

After consulting the University of Arizona website:
  • 3: No.
  • 6: No.

VERITAS directorship is not a highest level position as it is a project within Psychology department. Based on this Schwartz is not notable according to WP:PROF, proposing deletion pursuant to this. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm proposing deletion of this article on the grounds that Schwartz fails to meet the WP:PROF criteria as per my previous analysis. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Disagree. Here's the standard short bio for Schwartz:

GARY E. SCHWARTZ, Ph.D., Director of the VERITAS Research Program, is a professor of Psychology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Surgery at the University of Arizona and director of its Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health and its Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science. After receiving his doctorate from Harvard University, he served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic. Dr. Schwartz has published more than four hundred scientific papers, edited eleven academic books, is the author of The Afterlife Experiments, The G.O.D. Experiments, and The Truth About Medium, and is the co-author of The Living Energy Universe.

Sounds very notable to me. His center might seem "fringe" but it is the University of Arizona, after all, and couldn't be that disreputable. But even if you decide he fails on the WP:PROF guidelines, I think he would still make it just on the general WP:N guidelines--he's apparently quite well known. So I'll be bold and remove the tag, to make it clear there is no consensus for deletion.-- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply


None of that matters for the criteria of WP:PROF. Not every professor is notable by Wikipedia standards. I'm putting the prod tag back. IF you disagree please address the points in the analysis above. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't believe he meets WP:N either. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Oh and just to clarify, the fringe status of his work is not the reason I doubt he meets WP:PROF. The reason why I doubt his notability is because his directorship of VERITAS is the directorship of a research project within a department and the WP:PROF guidelines specify that a professor is notable if he holds, and I quote:
  • a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level,
  • a position as an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
  • a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
  • a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
And directorship of VERITAS does not meet those criteria. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Just for sake of comparisson Anthon.Eff I know you are active on the Ian Stevenson page. Now Stevenson is widely considered a fringe professor for... research... not much different from that of Schwartz. However Stevenson is notable. Why? Because he was the head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia; that meets the WP:PROF criteria of:
  • a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
Do you see what I am saying?


You apparently didn't read your own template. It says that if it is removed, don't replace it. So don't. Your next step, if you wish to pursue this, would be WP:AFD. You can try your line of reasoning there.-- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Alternate: Even if he is a professional, he doesn't need to make it solely on those criteria. Did he get reliable source coverage for his work or other things he did ? Even work that is questionable relevance to field could get substantial RS coverage- did he discover cold fusion- this wouldn't win him any awards or even make useful advances in the firld but would get lots of coverage and attract a rather diverse audience of gawkers. Also, this whole notion of "highly selective" etc is very subjective. If a national Creationism society gave one award a year, and got a national publication that isn't dedicated to Creationism but has a religious interest and reports factual matters faithfully, would that make the person notable? I can't remember seeing an IEEE fellow mentioned on CNN or VH1 so I'm not sure what the criteria would be here. Essentially you need to demonstrate that a large group of relevant people already have noted the topic as being of interest but when you start talking about "relevant people" you run into subjective issues. Certainly the term "Scholarly" suggests more an interest in rigour and merit than popularity but a scholar of the Bible can be just as much a scholar as any other, certainly a poet or artist. Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We can hardly speak to sources not included in the article. My statement that Schwartz does not meet WP:GNG are largely based on the self-referential nature of the references in the article. Almost everything links back to his own book; I see no indication of significant third party coverage. Although I respect Randi, he is not an expert on the media. Simonm223 ( talk) 03:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. First of all, it is perfectly acceptable in an Afd to discuss sources that should be included in the article but currently are not. WP:BEFORE states in bold: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Secondly, significant third party coverage is not required for an article to conform to WP:V. WP:SECONDARY states: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." and "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." Finally, James Randi is probably the best known skeptic and debunker of paranormal and supernatural claims and as such is an exquisite example of a reliable secondary source for this article. Location ( talk) 04:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The absence of reliable sources points to the failure of the article to meet WP:GNG. The two avenues for notability for this article are WP:GNG and WP:PROF. As I have demonstrated it does not meet WP:PROF this makes the presence or absence of RS pivotal to notability. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I am confused since you almost seemed to imply from the "ample time" comment that it's too late to add the sources. Now that the sources by Randi and others have been pointed out, are you stating that they are not reliable? Location ( talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Randi is a reliable source for his own opinion of Schwartz and not much else; invective such as "media darling" is empty rhetoric without any real worth unless it can be backed up. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Just finished reviewing the sources, excluding ones that Schwartz was author of. With one exception (Geraldo) they are articles from skeptical publications critiquing his research methodology. Although some are certainly reliable sources I doubt they constitute enough second party discussion to constitue notability under WP:GNG. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment. Of course the vast majority of sources that discuss Schwartz are going to be either from paranormal skeptics or paranormal believers discussing his research and methodology because it is his work with parapsychology that has made him notable. Location ( talk) 19:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment And I understand your point however 8 media items over the course of as many years hardly represents a heated debate. And that is how many non-primary RSes there are in this article, including Randi. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Edit & Keep. He has some notability as a "paranormal researcher", media figure, and author, and one could say he's a slightly more successful version of Professor Paranormal. Such personalities often present themselves as notable scientific academics, so strip away all the puffery and excess detail to avoid having this BIO be a WP:COATRACK pushing the supposed achievements of psychics. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Edit & Keep.With apologies to Simonm223, who argues his case well, I must agree with LuckyLouie. If the outcome of this discussion happens to be "Edit & Keep", it should be stipulated that this indicates a consensus to trim the article severely, and edit warriors who then try to preserve it in its present state should be sanctioned quickly instead of a whole new cycle of RfCs etc. having to be started. Goodmorningworld ( talk) 20:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 13:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Unforgivable Journey

Unforgivable Journey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Based on an internet search, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator withdrew his nomination. -- kelapstick ( talk) 23:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Non-admin closure) reply

V word

V word (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed with only the explanation "there is a V word." There isn't. There is an article The V Word, and this dab page should be a redirect. Drmies ( talk) 21:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Jon Crowe

Jon Crowe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I PRODed the article stating, "Subject is a musician who is not mentioned in any news media or books I can find; according to the page, has not released multiple major-label or large independent label records, and has not charted or earned gold records. Does not appear to meet guidelines for WP:Notability (music)." PROD was removed by an editor who then proposed speedy A7. Speedy was declined. I stand by my PROD rationale. Cnilep ( talk) 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete recommendation, as I will probably recommend deleting the parent article. A google search didn't turn up anything of substance on the band member himself, and neither did a print database search. From a decent attempt to look for suggestions of significant sources, nothing could be found. Martin Raybourne ( talk) 03:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

List of Newcastle United F.C. directors and chairmen

List of Newcastle United F.C. directors and chairmen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDIR. A list of chairmen is in the main article and that is sufficient (even if not enough, then the content of this article can easily be added there). This is not a normal type of article for other football clubs and I don't see a need for it. Delete. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment Here we go again with misleading comments in an AfD... Have you checked the notability of the people listed? All of the chairmen would be ok for starters, then of the directors, Seymour, Westwood, Fletcher, Harrison, D Hall should be easy, which only then leaves 13 of the 34 that I've not heard of. No strong feelings either way re the article, a list of directors probably is superfluous. I do however have strong feelings regarding the way some inaccurate statements are made as part of the Afd process, which could then be interpreted by others as fact 8lgm ( talk) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
As far as I can see this is just a list for the sake of having a list. See WP:LISTCRUFT Spiderone 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - a list of the club's chairmen is notable enough, but could easily be housed within the main article without significant bloat. A list of all board members is not needed, though - I have a complete list of Gillingham directors in one of my books and there must be at least a hundred, most of whom made no significant or lasting contribution to the club or football as a whole. Although this list attempts to counter this by including only long-serving or "otherwise important" (how do you quantify that?) directors, it's simply turned into a repository of everyone who's been on the board in the last decade or so...... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no need for a seperate article, any useful info can be merged into the main article. Giant Snowman 16:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Delete or merge to Main. Hubschrauber729 ( talk) 21:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that most of the participants here have been blocked as sockpuppets, it would be impossible to fairly judge consensus. – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Dil Jan Khan

Dil Jan Khan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't meet the Wiki:Notability, as the rank is not anything but equal to Additional Secretary / Secretary of British Bureaucracy. There are hundreds of Inspector Generals of Police in Pakistan. In any case it is not something which shouldn't be hinted. Recommended for Strong Deletion -- LineofWisdom ( talk) 20:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Reply - The discussion is being help open because the nomination was malformed. There was no proper header for the nomination making it difficult for other editors to see it in the list of nominations. -- Whpq ( talk) 11:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Apparently the nomination seems to be based on personal vendetta and family feud. The person who has made this nomination has only focused on two articles only. On the other hand this article has been on Wikipedia for more than two years and fulfills the criteria of being the head of an International Agency. I recommend a Keep. --  MARWAT  17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete I don't know, how come you, [[User:Marwatt| have accussed me for personal vendetta and fasmily fued, while I am son of a Punjabi speaking family and nothing to do with Pashtuns. Should I start nominating 100 articles, rather the two seems appropriate to me. What if the un-qualified Article exists for more than a decade here? Does it gives it sanctity? No, he has never remained the Head of International Organisation. It is just a desk at UN, who he was head. If he is qualified for creating an article for him, there would be hundred thousand of new articles for every desk-head at UN since its birth, back in 1946. Once again, Strong Delete. -- LineofWisdom ( talk) 07:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note to Closing Admin/Editor - Whatever the result is but the closing Administrator/Editor is requested to kindly look at the history of the user who nominated this article as well as the other article on Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. The point is that both the articles relate to two gentlemen who belong to the same clan of Marwat's and that almost all of his edits are related to insertions of his family member names in the parent article on Marwat which was created by me. So before finalizing this AFD vote, his true biased intentions may also be kept in mind as he was yesterday confirmed to have a sock which was banned by another admin. Thanks. --  MARWAT  11:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply


  • Note to Administrators Wether, I am a biased person or using sock, which i am not, still it wouldn't harm the wikipedia's policy regarding deletiong of this article. On one side, the ;">  MARWAT  is accusing me of inserting the familuy fellows, while on the other he is accusing me to be RayofWisom. Note that both, me and RayofWisom has voted against each other. My intentions couldn't be guessed by anyone else, as it is God only and myself who knows my intentions. But once again, wether I am a criminal or whatever, will it harm the policies of Wikipedia regarding this article? The article be deleted.-- LineofWisdom ( talk) 11:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, regardless of whether Marwat is correct in saying that this was nominated because of a vendetta, this article concerns a nonnotable person. Ultimately, it doesn't matter; if I nominate two articles about people in a group with each other, does that mean that I'm biassed against them? Even if it is meant to make a point, we can ignore that for now and delete it just as if this nomination were made by a neutral party. Nyttend ( talk) 15:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Although, a personal relative of mine, Dil Jan Khan, has never remained on a notableposition. The position he held in UN is totally a bureacuratic position, where usually Grade-21 (equvalient to Major General) officers are inducted from member countries. -- Marwat786 ( talk) 07:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC) — Marwat786 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Note to Nyttend - I respect your opinion however, what would you say about a vote by Marwat786 who appears as another sock puppet of LineofWisdom as this account was created only today and solely for voting on these two pages of Dil Jan Khan and Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. I can counter LineofWisdom by creating fake accounts, however, I don't believe in such absurdities. As an administrator it is your duty to keep an eye on such malicious elements. I would once gain repeat that what ever the result of this AFD, I would request to strike out all such fake votes and ban this user as well. --  MARWAT  12:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note to Nyttend I not only respect your comments but of each individual here. I am surfing Wikipedia since 2008, atleast once in fortnight. I recently created this I.D when it felt that being a native and Marwat myself, I must not keep quite on the issues relating to my tribe and its elder. I don't know how Marwatt is so confidant that I am Sock of other user who is much criticised for none. Now, when he has challenged my indetity, it is his moral duty to prove that I am using sock. Actually, he cannot see someone voting against him. He neverwants someone else than him, espcially from Marwat tribe, to speak and have freedom of writing here. If I am uneligible to vote on the very first day - my aim for making this I.D is cleared above - then my vote be declared null and void. But I request you administrators to track the previous record (from 2006 to date) of this user Marwatt to know his state of mind on article Marwat. It wonders me that he never talks regarding the deletion or whatever the subject is, but always challenges the Users' authority to defend any of the Articles that he wants to be here, wether of a Notable or obscure personality. In the end, is it fair to talk about users at Article for Deletions, rather debating and addressing the issues? Is there no administrator to stop his such notorious writings? -- Marwat786 ( talk) 17:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
*Keep I laugh to hear the discussion. The Administrator are requested to search through the official website of the Government of Pakistan i.e www.pakistan.gov.pk . Dil Jan has remained Federal Secretary Interior, SAFRON and Narcotics Control. This is the highest rank a civil servant can aspire to reach. ( Begukhan ( talk) 05:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)) reply
This user is a checkuser  Confirmed sock of Rayofwisom ( talk · contribs). J.delanoy gabs adds 17:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
(2nd Nomination)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Despite a rambling AfD that is very unclear, there appears to be little that passes WP:MUSIC here. However, the article should be given time to expand. Black Kite 22:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Carmine Guida

Carmine Guida (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability requirements for musicians. Can't find independent sources. The albums listed are all on extremely minor labels, most being marketed through CDbaby (a specialist site for unsigned musicians). An award from the Belly Dancing society of New Jersey doesn't convey much in the way of notability. — Kww( talk) 03:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete Per nom. I tagged this for numerous issues, including notability. 99.149.84.135 ( talk) 03:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep This is a new page, and apparently has been 'attacked' by its subject - who did not create it. Guida has apparently had music used on national television in the USA, and is well known certainly in the NYC area. I'll try and add some more independant sources but I'm kind of strapped for time. Luminifer ( talk) 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Also, CDBaby is not a site for unsigned musicians - even people as notable as 24-7 Spyz and Bumblefoot have their CDs on there - and other places as well. Having your CD on CDBaby doesn't really mean anything.. Luminifer ( talk) 17:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply
They do seem to have loosened their policies a bit about signed artists. I went looking for their old declaration on the topic, and it seems to have disappeared. Yes, having CDBaby as a part of your distribution doesn't make you non-notable, but having CDBaby as the only distribution channel for a CD goes a long way towards demonstrating non-notability.— Kww( talk) 19:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I could see saying that - but many of his releases are also available on amazon (and presumably other places). I also did a search on google for 'instructional doumbek video', and Carmine Guida is actually the very first result - I don't know if you think that says something, but it's worth noting at least. Luminifer ( talk) 20:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment Unfortunately it is kinda difficult to find good sources which discuss the person. Here are some: [26] - source of unknown authority; iShimmy - Guida is among the creators/staff of the website;... - Altenmann >t 21:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Wow, that's an interesting piece either way - thanks! Luminifer ( talk) 21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment - is it looking a little more notable? I should point out that he's not only notable for his albums, but more for his instructions and his music being used on television, as well as his performances... Luminifer ( talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment - there are two notable sources if you click the "news" link at the top of here, but I can't seem to get at them. Particularly this:

Elgin's Martini Room to host drum-playing, belly dance party Belly up...
$2.95 - Courier News - NewsBank - Jan 1, 2007
King, who teaches belly dancing on Tuesdays at The Centre of Elgin, will
accompanied at the workshop by Carmine Guida, a nationally recognized Middle ...
Luminifer ( talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 20:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Still don't see any solid reliable support here. CDBaby and Amazon comprise most of the references, and those aren't reliable sources for notability or significance; they're not really valid sources at all. The other refs appear awfully slim, and are either blogs or personal websites--without a single article devoted primarily to the subject in a major publication, it's hard to see how a claim can be made for notability. 99.149.84.135 ( talk) 01:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
What would be a valid source for album release information, in your opinion, if vendors are not? I believe they're certainly more reliable than any guide has proven to be, as they are one step closer to the material. (This has nothing to do with the delete nom, it's just a confusing issue, which I brought up on the talk page but no one is addressing) Luminifer ( talk) 03:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The guidelines are at WP:MUSIC. 99.149.84.135 ( talk) 03:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I'd like to point out that WP:MUSIC states This page provides a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs. This doesn't wholly apply in this case, as Guida is more famous as an instructor and authority on middle eastern music and instruments (and thus his coming up in papers by ethnomusicologists - did you miss that one when you said "only blogs or personal websites"? it's easy to do as the cdbaby links do overpower things). As an aside, I actually disagree with allmusic being a good source - as many people do - but WP:MUSIC offers no real alternatives. Luminifer ( talk) 04:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Amazon is a fine source for existence and release dates, but doesn't do much to validate notability.— Kww( talk) 04:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
This seems quite circular, and I realize there's little point in my repeating this, but the subject's notability has not been established by reliable sources. The reference to the ethnomusicologist is a cite of a master's thesis. WP:MUSIC is indeed helpful, and relevant. Does not yet meet criteria. 99.149.84.135 ( talk) 04:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
As I stated, I don't believe WP:MUSIC solely applies here, as he is more known as a teacher and authority than a maker of musical recordings - which WP:MUSIC very specifically says is who/what it applies to. I would suggest Wikipedia:Notability (people) is a better guide to follow for this, which states A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.. Luminifer ( talk) 05:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
That's fine; the essential issue is the same. He doesn't yet appear to meet criteria under the guidelines you bold-faced, nor under those outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (people), WP:ACADEMICS, or WP:CREATIVE. The same expectations re: sources applies, no matter which area of achievement is chosen. 99.149.84.135 ( talk) 06:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I see that there are quite a few pieces of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. How is that not the case? Luminifer ( talk) 17:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
It is not unreasonable to question the reliability of the secondary sources: the article's second reference, to the Post Gazette article, is about the opening of a new coffee house, and it's hard to find mention of the subject in the article; As noted earlier, Ederer's article is a thesis paper; NJ Belly Dancing Org. is probably not a reliable source; similarly, one questions a very brief mention in 'I Shimmy' belly dancing magazine, as well as bellydancertrainer.com as a reliable source. In brief, most of the mentions are passing, or in sources that are not established journalistic entities. Such mention, coupled with the copious use of CDBaby and Amazon links, prove only that the subject is a working musician and teacher, not necessarily a significant or notable one--he may well be, but that's not been established. As footnote 4 to criteria for notability states: The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. There is only one reference that is an article about the subject alone, and that comes from bellydancertrainer.com; my question to editors and the administrator who eventually decides the issue is whether these sources taken together constitute notability. If so, I have long misunderstood guidelines and requirements for inclusion, and I will stand corrected. 99.149.84.135 ( talk) 18:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
As far as I've interpreted it, the guidelines for inclusion are intentionally vague and mention (several times) reaching concensus on notability, rather than a cold hard set of rules to follow. Luminifer ( talk) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
He has been covered in print as well, but I don't actually peruse print material. I will see what I can find. Luminifer ( talk) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
None of these sources are providing a direct and detailed examination of Carmine Guida, which is what is required by WP:RS. They are only passing mentions.— Kww( talk) 19:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The article under the bellydancetrainer.com is actually all about him (and it's not the only one) - it's even called "Catching up with Carmine Guida" - and it turns out to be similar material to a printed magazine sourced, which I have also now referenced. There are also reviews of CDs on which he appears. Luminifer ( talk) 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
As an aside, can you quote for me where from WP:RS it states what you say - that it need to provide a "direct and detailed examination" of the subject? There have got to be tons of notable wikipedia article already in existance that fail that criterion - having a detail study about them. Luminifer ( talk) 00:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
It's been changed to "must directly support". I'll dig through and find out when and why (and probably change it back).— Kww( talk) 01:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Just lost track of my acronyms: WP:N.— Kww( talk) 01:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Ah, you left out the key phrase at the end there. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Many of these sources do exactly that. Luminifer ( talk) 02:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - I've added a few more print references, one discussing him and one reviewing CD he was on, specifically praising the drum solos he performed on there. Luminifer ( talk) 04:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Smart shop. Black Kite 22:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Growshop

Growshop (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Growshop is a brand name and a Dutch term; there is no evidence of notability for the term in English common use apart from as a brand name and so this article fails wp:MADEUP. There are many articles in Google News using the word "Grow Shop" but this is invariably for "Grow Shop Limited", a company name or articles in Dutch rather than English (example search for most recent articles [27]). Ash ( talk) 07:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Keep or merge to Smart shop, but the article requires cleanup for sure. This is the English language wikipedia, not the Wikipedia about English subjects. Sources in other languages and subjects from other language regions are perfectly acceptable. In addition, there definately are reliable english sources that use the word:
  • The Guardian, Monday 17 March 2003 [28]
  • The Weekly Standard, 10/22/2007, Volume 013, Issue 06 [29]
-- Reinoutr ( talk) 10:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article says "A grow shop or growshop, it is an indoor store where a variety of crops and plants are cultivated". Considerable time spent searching on the internet suggests that in fact the substantial majority of uses of the expression "growshop" refer to either:
  1. Shops selling hydroponic equipment and supplies, and not cultivating plants on the premises, or
  2. Shops providing products relating to cannabis.
Of the two citations given above by Reinoutr, the first one mentions the word growshop once, as a source of cannabis seed, not stating that a variety of (or indeed any) plants are cultivated there; the second citation refers to "grow" shops (with quotes) in reference to a law passed by the city of Rotterdam with a view to closing down premises selling illegal drugs. By no stretch of the imagination could this be regarded as substantial coverage, and it is also not at all clear that either of these citations refers to the meaning given in the defintion in the article.
While the meaning given in the article may exist, I can find no evidence at all that it is common, or that there is any substantial coverage of the meaning in reliable sources. Even if such coverage could be found, it would not be helpful to have an article which gives the impression that that is the main meaning of the word, since it clearly isn't. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The meaning as currently portrayed in the article, is indeed not fully accurate. That argues for correction and cleanup, however, not deletion. More substantial coverage and use of the word (albeit in dutch news reports) can be found here:
The articles mentioned earlier were just to indicate that the word is actually used by english newspapers as well. -- Reinoutr ( talk) 12:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Patent A7 - no importance or significance claimed. Black Kite 20:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Sally Boazman

Sally Boazman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability, accuracy, lack of sources. Apparent request from subject per WP:BLPN#Sally Boazman Martin451 ( talk) 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was The article has been usefried so I can close this. . Tone 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge

Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: No indication of notability. (NB: Article has already been deleted 4 times under the title "Frank and Mary’s Family Restaurant and Lounge" and once under the title "Frank and Mary’s Catfish House". ) JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • WP:NOT#WEBHOST explains it all. Mega Delete The Weak Willed 13:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've tried to help this user to understand reliable sources and will take no !voting position here. However, I think this article is on the borderline. One problem is that there are no useful guidelines about the notability of individual restaurants, AFAIK; my instinct is to think that restaurants that have been in existence for quite a while are more possibly notable than others, and this one has been around for decades. The references provided might or might not bolster notability, depending on your attitude. There are no notable chefs associated with this restaurant. Do restaurant reviews count? I suppose it depends on how well-known the reviewer is, and the notability of the publication, and I'm not able to assess the relative notability of what's provided since I am not familiar with the publications. I have no idea how unusual/not unusual it is to have a catfish restaurant in the referenced area; in my area, it would be extraordinary and possibly notable (mainly because the catfish would have to be flown in from thousands of miles away). It's not clear if this is a prominent example of a restaurant exemplifying a notable regional cuisine. For all these grey areas, I'm willing to defer to someone with greater expertise, but I wanted to mention them to make sure this article received full consideration. Accounting4Taste: talk 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I now see the arguement here. I still vote delete though. Age doesn't indicate notability, and this is no exception. I have visited many restaraunts that are this old, or slightly younger. Age may help indicate notability, (such as if the food network were to do a 3 hour documentary on the oldest diner in North Carolina, but until there has been media coverage, it shouldn't be notable. My 2¥. The Weak Willed 17:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm not going to pay to check the Baltimore Sun piece, but I think it's identical to the Sun-Times one. If you look at the search results here, you'll see that several papers picked up that piece from Universal Press Syndicate in January–March 1991. It seems to be the only at-all-substantial news treatment of the place. Deor ( talk) 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Looking at the abstracts for those two newspaper articles, they have the appearance of write-ups of a press release. It is very common for several newspapers to print the same or essentially the same syndicated item based on a press release. In fact ironically enough calling attention to these newspaper items has increased my feeling that the article should be deleted, on the principle that if this is the best that the article's defenders can come up with then there must really be little coverage. There is often disagreement about what constitutes "substantial" coverage, but these don't look like it to me. JamesBWatson ( talk) 08:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. I originally took no position, merely raising a number of points for consideration (see above) but upon consideration I have to agree with the nominator, especially in the comment immediately above. The newspaper pieces do look rather uncritical and appear to have accepted the restaurant's own assertions wholesale. Thus there seem to be no reliable sources offering substantial coverage, and I think User:JamesBWatson has put his finger on the crux of the definition of substantial. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • delete as a topic entirely non-notable and unsuited for an encyclopedia, without even thinking about outside sources. one or even multiple restaurant reviews would not make this useful encyclopedic material. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens ( talk) 22:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have found sufficient sources that allow this restaurant to pass WP:N.

    Here is a restaurant review written by Chicago Sun-Times from Jane and Michael Stern. After perusing through the contents of this article, I have determined that it is a review, not a republishing of a press release. The article says, "Waitresses work fast and are friendly ..." Although this is not a critical review, it proves that the reviewers tried out the restaurant.

    The second source I discovered was this article by Susan Guyett of The Indianapolis Star. This is a fully-available article, and a cursory look at it proves that it is a reliable review.

    Third, this article by David Newton of ESPN discusses Frank and Mary's in relation to Jeff Gordon, who always ate there "because there's really no other place to eat."

    Finally, I was able to obtain this Google Books entry, which provides a 3-page review for this restaurant. Although this is a travel guide, notability is clearly established because the other restaurants in this book receive on average a half-page review.

    These four sources are all in-depth reliable sources about the subject. If this were a BLP or a novel, notability would be fully established. Why would it be any different for a restaurant? It shouldn't be because this restaurant easily passes WP:CORP. Cunard ( talk) 05:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

    • That third one is hardly a substantial treatment of the restaurant. And the fourth one is a travel-guide entry for a different place, in Chicago. So what we have is one review (the Stern piece, whatever its origin) that was picked up by several papers and one review in a local paper. Deor ( talk) 11:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
      • The first two sources are sufficient to establish this restaurant's notability. Two in-depth sources are enough for a restaurant to pass WP:CORP. However, the presence of other sources that discuss this restaurant add even more to its notability. You argue that a review in a local paper is doesn't demonstrate notability. Where in the notability guidelines does it state that local sources are insufficient to establish notability? There is nothing wrong with local newspaper articles, as long as the newspapers have an editorial board and can qualify as a reliable source. Although the other two sources are not stellar, they do add to this restaurant's notability. Please explain why a travel book is an unreliable source or a source that doesn't establish notability.

        This travel book has information about a number of restaurants. However, it decided to devote 3 pages to this restaurant (whereas other restaurants receive only half a page). The book entry not only provides information about the restaurant's food, but it also provides significant history about it. This book is not a directory of all the restaurants in Chicago; instead, it provides information about restaurants that it deems notable. This is definitely not a passing mention, so it should not be disqualified. Cunard ( talk) 01:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

        • Once again, those three pages in that travel guide are not about the restaurant that's the subject of this article, which is in Pittsboro, Indiana. They're about a completely different restaurant, which is in Chicago, Illinois. Clear now? Deor ( talk) 01:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - lots of local restaurants will get local reviews. Aside from the UP newswire pickup, there hasn't been any coverage outside the local area. And even in the local area, there is not evidence of notability with any repeated and multiple reviews of the restaurant. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • lots of local restaurants will get local reviews. True, but Wikipedia is not made of paper. This argument is wrong because there is no limit to space.

    Aside from the UP newswire pickup, there hasn't been any coverage outside the local area. I don't know what you mean by "UP newswire pickup", but this article is not a press release. It is a reliable source that is from Gainesville, Florida, which is thousands of miles from Pittsboro.

    And even in the local area, there is not evidence of notability with any repeated and multiple reviews of the restaurant. There are two local articles (in addition to one article from a non-local newspaper) about this restaurant, so that should be sufficient to establish notability. Pittsboro, Indiana has a population of 2,567. With a town of this size, there is seldom more than one local newspaper. The fact that this restaurant has received two articles is a testament to its notability. Deleting an article with three reliable sources because two are local sources is unreasonable. Cunard ( talk) 22:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You obviously haven't been reading this AfD very closely. What "newswire pickup" means is that the same review, distributed by the Universal Press Syndicate, was printed in several papers around the same time. Note that the Chicago piece cited in the article is identical to the Gainesville piece you're making so much of now, which is identical to pieces published in Dallas, Lexington, Baltimore, and Salt Lake City papers. All of these appearances of the one review can't be considered separate sources for the purpose of establishing notability. And where are these "two local articles"? I see only one. Deor ( talk) 22:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Is Universal Press Syndicate an unreliable source? No, so it should not be discounted. The two local articles are this one and this one. The first one is very in-depth, while the second one provides three paragraphs of information about this company. Cunard ( talk) 22:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
It boils down to the breadth and depth of coverage. For me, this doesn't cut it. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: The article's author has moved the article into his user space, leaving a cross-namespace redirect in mainspace, which I'm reluctant to have deleted until this AfD concludes, since doing so would break the links at the head of this page. The article has once before been userfied for him when it was deemed unsuitable for mainspace, and he moved it back (as the article we're considering here) without asking anyone whether it had become suitable. I'd normally view a move of this sort as an attempt to short-circuit the AfD; but the author is a youngster who hasn't shown much comprehension of WP policies or practices, and he perhaps didn't realize that the move wasn't a good idea. I recommend that if the conclusion here is for deletion, the page User:Sedna10387/Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge be deleted, along with the redirect (and perhaps the various titles at which articles about the restaurant have been deleted should be salted to prevent re-creation). Deor ( talk) 02:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I wasn't going to !vote on this, since I have a certain amount of sympathy for the author, who I'm sure is of the opinion that I've been very mean to him during his time here, thwarting his efforts to write about aspects of his hometown that seem important to him. Nevertheless, I concur with the reasoning of the nominator and Accounting4Taste. Deor ( talk) 02:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 22:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Cuban packages

AfDs for this article:
Cuban packages (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails notability requirement.

  • The only cuban packages that a google search shows, are the touristic ones. Not even by the Spanish name "bultos cubanos" shows any good source.
  • In addition, none of the two sources that are currently used to reference the whole article can be accessed.
  • Moreover, if this was a notable (and important) event in Chilean history it would certainly be available at least in the Spanish Wikipedia. Likeminas ( talk) 19:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: Determining notability about a subject from the Spanish speaking world by seeing whether there is an article in Spanish wikipedia is not necessarily reliable. Some time ago I began a page in English wp on the Chilean philosopher Roberto Torretti, a leading authority on the philosophy of science – but in the Spanish project there is still no page on Torretti. Regards_ Moshe-paz ( talk) 06:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a non-notable non-event. There are not even passing mentions of it in any book. There are no references to it in any accessible newspaper articles, either in Spanish or English. The current link is to a repost in a blog. Notmyrealname ( talk) 21:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Further comment: The title of the article is also a problem. A Google search of "Cuban packages" or "bultos Cubanos" does not lead to any references to this topic. There is no evidence that this is a commonly known incident in any language. It also seems from the scant references available that there is no common description of these events. Again, these all point back to questions of notability. Notmyrealname ( talk) 19:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. An important event in history mentioned in many sources, including books such as Simon Collier, William F. Sater. A history of Chile, 1808-1994, Norman Friedman. The Fifty-Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War, Thomas C. Wright. Latin America in the era of the Cuban Revolution. Luis Napoles ( talk) 22:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Can you add page numbers to these references where this is discussed? There are no results for "Cuban Packages" in these books using Google Scholar. Notmyrealname ( talk) 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment These sources were just inserted by Luis Napoles and still need to be verified for accuracy. I will look into them and report back Likeminas ( talk) 22:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments: What could be done to deal with those who want to delete this page is present specific paragraphs from these books within the footnotes of the page. Whereby it can be easily determined by the readers in which context the term “Cuban packages” where used by the specific authors you have mentioned. Regards_ Moshe-paz ( talk) 06:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is interesting, sourced and obviously notable. Searches in Google and on wikis are not a proof of anything. Biophys ( talk) 01:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A search for Norman Friedman and Cuban packages doesn’t yield any information about such an incident. Norman Friedman wrote about the cold war on a good vs evil premise that appeals to many radical Cuban exiles and he (or others mentioned) may have coined, figuratively used or paraphrased some event with the words 'Cuban packages'. But this would certainly not be the basis for a page in an encyclopaedia because it doesn’t constitute an incident per se. Given that most searches about this “Cuban packages” incident lead to Wikipedia and no other sources, a case for deleting it on the grounds that an encyclopaedia is not a primary source of information is reasonable enough. Regards_ Moshe-paz ( talk) 06:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Crips. Black Kite 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Eight Tray Gangster Crips

Eight Tray Gangster Crips (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted last year via prod. Non-notable sub-set of a notable organization. The larger organization, the Crips is notable, but this set has a lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. While the article calls them the most well known set in LA, there is a total of 1 gnews hit and that is about crimes in the Denver area. [33]. No real shortage of ghits, but they are almost exclusively sites that won't pass WP:RS or mirrors of wikipedia. Of the first 100 returns, only 1 would pass RS and it simply mentioned them in a list of various sets. Fails WP:ORG. Can't really speedy since the article claims notability. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply


Well it seems you have no knowledge of the criteria being discussed so your call for deletion is moot in the eyes of logic. Furthermore, if you know anything about the Crips you would know that the two largest sets are the Rollin 60s and the 83 Gangsters -- try looking up the name 'Sanyika "Monster" Shakur' formerly 'Kody Scott' whom was close friends with "Tookie" Williams; the founder of the Crips. Really, all I see is an ignorant observer attempting to keep others ignorant of the same information. I think there are MUCH more important things that need to be attended to here at Wikipedia. I mean really, just google "Eight Tray" or "Eight Tray Gangster". There are 19 million and 92 million results, respectively. There is even a movie called 'Eight Tray Gangster: The Making of a Crip' which is reviewed in the New York Times. Conclusively, your call for deletion has no basis and the reasoning for such a thing is actually horribly inaccurate -- as obviously seen with a single quick Google search. Psychedelia ( talk) 00:53, 20 August 2009 (-8 GMT)

  • Actually, I do understand the criteria. Google hits don't demonstrate notability. Try reading WP:GOOGLE. As I said in the nom, out of the first 100, only 1 of the returns would pass WP:RS. I am aware of the movie and book. That makes Kody Scott notable (and he has an article), but that doesn't make the set itself notable. To put it in simpler terms, the American Red Cross is notable, but the (insert random county) Red Cross chapter is not notable. You need to read the applicable guidelines and policies. I know they are one of the largest sets, but that doesn't make them notable on their own. Nor will lecturing me about how little I know make it notable, especially when you are wrong. First, I know much more about the topic than you think and second, I know the applicable policies and that's why this article is nominated for delection. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Your version of reliable sources must be different from mine. Your totalitarian tactics, more obvious than your affiliation with the GOP, are clearly biased. From viewing your usertalk page and viewing your many other wiki accounts it seems you have a problem with information being added if YOU think it's not valuable. You're one person, remember this -- and your opinion should only be weighed as such. Is calling for deletion of an article that myself and several others, including members of the Crips whom I am affiliated with, find EXTREMELY NOTABLE really that important to you? I'm looking to contribute knowledge and you are trying to condemn it. Psychedelia ( talk) 18:31, 21 August 2009 (-8 GMT)
      • If you are a Crip, maybe you should read WP:COI. But your response clearly shows you still haven't read WP:RS. I posted this question on the reliable sources noticeboard for a third opinion and they are agreeing that the sites like you are using do not meet the requirements. (no opinion on streetgangs.com in particular, but similar sites) While you are at it, you might want to read WP:NPA. Your !vote is really nothing more than a case of WP:ILIKEIT. Nothing you've said here is based on policy. BTW, I have no other wiki accounts. Everything I've done is under this name. If you suspect otherwise, feel free to initiate a sockpuppet investigation and let them prove you wrong. I hve no fear of being proven to have been nothing but honest. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or merge to Crips. There are a few more hits under the " correct" spelling, but nothing stellar that I could access. This DoJ press release commends officers for their work against one of the most notorious and violent street gangs within Los Angeles (1996). This Time article discusses an alleged member in depth, and mentions that they are estimated to have distributed hundreds of kilos of crack and cocaine powder worth well in excess of $10 million on the street. (1995). - 2/0 ( cont.) 14:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect. The Time article you refer to, about an individual, actually focuses mostly on that individuals criminal activities in other states, away from the gang. The AG memo really isn't that in-depth. No dispute that they exist and are violent. What is in dispute is their notability and the lack of significant coverage about the group itself. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 14:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Salgados Golf

Salgados Golf (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vale de Milho (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Oceânico Laguna (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Oceânico Millennium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Oceânico Victoria (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pine Cliffs Golf (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Palmares Golf (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vale da Pinta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Oceânico Pinhal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pinheiros Altos (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an advertisement and entire content appears to have been cut-and-paste from another source, although that source does appear to be GNU Free Documentation License. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all, every single one is a copyvio (Click on "repeat the search with the omitted results included" if WP is the only search result). If I understand copyright regulations properly it is sufficient if the content is placed on a single non-free page to make it a cp violation. As all of them are listed e.g. on www.toursforyou.pt, which is copyrighted, it cannot stay at WP. -- Pgallert ( talk) 11:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  19:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Jesse Richards

AfDs for this article:
Jesse Richards (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This artist seems to lack any notability, other than an association with the Stuckists. Google searches turn up self-promotion but little else. Google news searches turn up college newspaper items. An earlier AFD closed in no consensus - artist's notability and profile does not appear to have increased since then. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 16:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Richards was a notable member of the Stuckism movement, and was included in some of their major shows, including The Stuckists Punk Victorian, which was a notable show at a national gallery. A Google search reveals articles about him as well as interviews in online magazines. Stuckism is considered to be notable by Wikipedia standards, as well as certain artists associated with the movement. I don't see other articles about Stuckist artists marked for deletion, who have been involved in many of the same projects as Richards, so I would certainly wonder about the reasons for Delicious carbuncle's decision for choosing this particular article.

In my view, this article should not be deleted. Arturobandini ( talk) 17:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Also I just noticed that the person that nominated the article for deletion the first time was banned from Wikipedia for vandalism, so I can't really consider the earlier AFD to be particularly relevant. Arturobandini ( talk) 19:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Do any of the article actually cover this individual substantially? It seems that he is only mentioned in relation to a group of artists and an art movement. Perhaps he should be mentioned in that article? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are quite enough references to justify an article, and good quality sources, particularly National Museums Liverpool: he has a dedicated biog entry in the Milner book (Milner, Frank (2004). The Stuckists Punk Victorian, p. 132. National Museums Liverpool, ISBN  1-902700-27-9). He played a significant part in the early promotion of an art movement, Stuckism, in the US. He was included in the major show representing the Stuckists at the Walker Art Gallery, one of only eight artist from outside the UK. [34] (There are now over 200 Stuckist groups worldwide. [35]) There is a full-length interview by Brian Sherwin. [36] (NB Myartspace is a site with editorial oversight that uses the blog format for interviews.) Ty 10:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per evidence of notability. I'd like to see substantial coverage, but I think there's enough to justify an article. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Sir Lucius O'Brien, 3rd Baronet

AfDs for this article:
Sir Lucius O'Brien, 3rd Baronet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO Ironholds ( talk) 19:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Sir Edward O'Brien, 2nd Baronet

AfDs for this article:
Sir Edward O'Brien, 2nd Baronet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. Ironholds ( talk) 19:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jedi. Redirect to Jedi for now. Eventually, it can me merged into another article if this shows as a better choice. Tone 20:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Jedi Academy

Jedi Academy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic fails to establish notability through significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. It is depicted in a game and several Expanded Universe novels -- but, in those instances, it is merely a plot device/setting; no one in the real world seems to care enough about it to offer the subject encyclopedic coverage. Search engine hits are mostly fan sites and game reviews. Wookieepedia offers multple entries on "Jedi Academy"s, but the focus in this article aligns most with their Jedi Praxeum article, which provides no additional "Behind the Scenes" pointers that might suggest third-party perspectives on the topic. The starwars.com Databank doesn't even have an entry on the topic (at least under Locations or Organizations). This slice of articlespace might better be served as a disambiguation page -- the current content is unencylopedic. -- EEMIV ( talk) 18:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Subject is related to Star Wars makes it notable by default. A merge might be okay too. How would deleting the subject make the encyclopedia better? Use the Force EEMIV. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    Clarification I was half joking with this original statement, not that the article should be kept, but just about everything Star Wars related being notable. It's clear that the subject of this article is very notable (which is why I though tit would be okay to joke), as an investigation of sources and coverage reveals. Because it's been involved in so many games and books, sorting through all the coverage takes some time, but even as page to note all the notable uses of this feature of the Star Wars universe is an encyclopedic helpful and useful improvement. Deleting it would be damaging to the encyclopedia and would eliminate an encyclopedic topic that just needs some editing, trimming, expanding and improving. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    "It's clear that the subject of this article is very notable"... I don't think that's clear to everyone. It's not clear to me that it has been the topic of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. What's clear to me is that it's not clear whether this subject is notable. If it were, we wouldn't be discussing it. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    Lots of notable subjects are discussed at AfD and lots of non-notable subjects. This one is clearly notable. If you're in doubt I suggest you peruse Google News and review the numerous cites and many highly notable manifestations of this subject in popular fiction, movies, and games, all of them discussed in oodles of reliable independent sources, a few of which I've gone ahead and added to the article. If you have any questions about the notability guideline it is based on substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and further details can be discerned by reviewing the policy page here wp:notability. I hope that helps clear the fog. Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Sorry, CoM. Still foggy. I've checked, and I'm not seeing it. Since it's "clearly notable" and "highly notable", I guess that just means I'm somehow incompetent to evaluate sources. Oh, well. As for the notability "policy", I helped write it; I know what it says. Thanks. I have yet to see a single source that's actually about the Jedi Academy. Where are the articles about that building? Where has someone made it the subject of their writing? - GTBacchus( talk) 06:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jedi. The Academy itself, as is stated above, is not covered reliably, and is only notable in the realm of Star Wars, and really only when concerning specific Jedi affairs, not the major interests of the public. A small portion of the material may be able to be incorporated there, but for the most part this should just stand as a redirect. ~ Amory ( user • talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Fortunately there is a Star Wars architecture article, so if the subject isn't kept (as I've recommended above) it can be merged. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • A Jedi Academy was established in Surrey England, another in Romania. It's the setting and part of the name of a very popular and notable video game (that has its own article). I just wrote up a bunch of stuff with newslinks etc. But one of the links was on the spam blacklist so I lost it all. But there are plenty of sources to write a decent article. The massive coverage of the video game jsut means it requires a bit of digging. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The video game and book series have their own articles -- and maybe, as I wrote above, Jedi Academy is better as a dab page to point toward those two products. However, as I explained in my nomination, even in these projects that contain the article's subject, the Jedi Academy is essentially just a window dressing locale for some fights and whatnot. There still is no evidence of significant third-party coverage. -- EEMIV ( talk) 03:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The sources you added were not attached to any of the claims in the article, nor did you add any substance to the article -- the "sources" seem just to be to links where the subject is mentioned. If you've actually found evidence of the subject's notability -- real-people actually talking about this make-believe building -- then paraphrase or otherwise integrate the information; a "source" without information from it is just another External link, and should be labeled as such. Please revisit these "sources" and either cull information from them, or restore the links under the appropriate EL heading. -- EEMIV ( talk) 03:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I was able to find numerous reliable sources with substantial independent coverage which is the standard to meet notability. That the article needs work isn't in dispute. Now that notability is no longer in question, please withdraw this nomination so I can focus my energies on improving the article and others instead of discussing it. Your help in doing so would be greatly appreciated! Now that I've added the sources it's a lot easier to accomplish the improvements that are needed. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The sources in no way suggest significant coverage; notability remains unestablilshed -- either through inference from signs of significant coverage, or even a substantiated claim of notability in the article itself. This is simply an insignificant topic with no evidence it warrants coverage here; better treated at Wookieepedia, with a dab page or redirect to Jedi in its place. -- EEMIV ( talk) 05:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
CoM, I wouldn't say the notability is "no longer in question". There are clearly people questioning it; let's not assume they're convinced without convincing them.

To me as well, it appears that those sources mention the academy in passing, and/or fail to provide more than trivial coverage. For example, I've just gone through the "Universalities" link. There's a one-liner entry defining the Academy, and a couple of passing mentions. Besides that, the search hits in that source are references to the computer game Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy and to Kevin J. Anderson's Jedi Academy trilogy. The game has its own article, which might serve as a good merge/redirect target.

Saying "please withdraw this nomination" pretty much never works; you might as well know that ahead of time. If you focus your energies on improving the article now, that's how you prevent the deletion going through. Trying to win this discussion without first doing that just won't do you, or the Academy, any favors. We need sources that actually discuss the Academy itself, as a topic in its own right. Try stripping the article down to what is specifically verified in the sources, and see how much is left.

Have a look at Category:Star Wars location lists. A good solution might be to create List of Star Wars buildings. Any building that is covered there in enough detail—from sources—could then be split off into its own article. That's often a good approach. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Well let's be clear, I did not create this article, and it's not a topic I'm wildly interested in, but in reviewing the AfD I am finding lots of sources. The nominator and those trying to delete it haven't added any. Some of the sources are more in depth than others, but this is clearly a very significant part of the Star Wars series that has been a focal point for games and a setting for storylines in various mediums. I'm certainly willing to consider a merge and willing to collaborate on improving the article, but if I'm the only one working on it, and I have to constantly defend the articl'es notability against deletion, that isn't very helpful or collaborative. I'm adding sources and with a little help from others we can fix the article or work out a proper merge through collegial discussion. This is a collaborative encyclopedia so nominating things for deletion and then expecting someone else to do all the work in fixing them isn't very helpful. And just in the one source you mention this subject is on six different pages. So while that isn't in itself substantial coverage it's six bits of good information and taken with other coverage it's what's required to build a good article on this subject. Fictional subjects are generally given in depth coverage in the New York Times, so the extent of coverage and discussion of this subject in various sources discussing it's influence in the real world where Jedi Academies have been started, as an example of religious modeling in fiction, and a fictional element in an extraordinarily popular game, as a setting for a series of books, and as a plot element in one of the most popular sci-fi universes of all times gives a very strong indication that it's important enough to be worth including. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I think the point that I and others are trying to make is that we have looked and found no reliable sources showing notability. I fully believe EEMIV nominated this article in good faith for the appropriate reasons, not as a sneaky backhanded attempt to get someone to improve an article in his or her stead. ~ Amory ( user • talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
CoM, perhaps we're talking past each other. I don't claim that nominating an article for deletion without trying to fix it is helpful. However, people do it, and you can't change that. It is a concrete fact that asking someone to withdraw the nomination and help build the article doesn't work. Don't do things that don't work; do things that work.

Fixing the article works, and you don't have to defend it against deletion, ever. Just fix it up, in your own time, and if it gets deleted out from under you, ask me for a copy so you can develop it in your user space until it's ready. I will happily provide that on request. Expecting others to help you doesn't work, unless you're lucky. If luck doesn't come through, do something that works instead.

You can't make people be what you wish they would be. That doesn't work. Do things that work. Sorry, but that's the way it is. You can't make people care about this article, but if you care about it, you might be able to save it. Arguing on this page won't get you there. Editing the article very well might. Why argue on this page, when you know that won't work? You do know that, don't you?

If your goal is to feel righteous and wronged by a cruel world, then arguing here is a great way to do that. I can't imagine that's your goal, so what point in arguing here? There's almost never a case on Wikipedia where going more than 2 rounds of argument is a remotely good idea. Do things that are good ideas. Arguing doesn't work very well. Editing articles does. Creating a List of Star Wars buildings article is the solution that I think is most likely to work, so why not do it? I'll tell you why I don't do it: I don't care about this article. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
(
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jedi. Redirect to Jedi for now. Eventually, it can me merged into another article if this shows as a better choice. Tone 20:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Jedi Temple

Jedi Temple (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very pretty make-believe building, but a topic that lacks evidence of notability established by significant coverage by multiple reliable, third-party sources (article currently lacks any citations whatsoever). "Behind the scenes" blurb at starwars.com is insufficient to establish notability (or even meet writing-about-fiction standards), and Wookieepedia coverage doesn't include a "Behind the Scenes" section (which usually is a good jumping off point for finding third-party coverage). Search engine hits are mostly fan sites and Jedi quasi-religion sites. -- EEMIV ( talk) 17:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The article as it stands right now is obviously insufficient as it lacks sources and citations, but I'm pretty sure there are reliable third party sources on this topic out there, and that the article could pretty easily be rewritten in a Wikipedia-friendly context placing less focus on the fiction. I'm gonna try to look for some sources before I vote on this.... — Hunter Kahn ( c) 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Redirect to Jedi. I agree with the nomination - the Template doesn't have a sliver of notability outside of the realm. It is, however, pretty integral to the Jedi Order, which itself is rather verifiably notable. This content belongs at Jedi. ~ Amory ( user • talk • contribs)
  • Comment I would like to reiterate my statement that the Jedi Temple is very notable. A simple google news search shows that it is #3 on the Architect's Journal Star Wars Architecture top 10 [38]. I would not be opposed to merging this and the academy into a more general article on the very notable subject of architecture in the Star Wars universe. I also think they are just fine as stand-alone subjects that have been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Editors are welcome to make improvements, add citations, trim extraneous or unencyclopedic content, but I encourage all editors to think creatively about how to include subjects of interest like these instead of rushing to delete them. We are a pageless encyclopedia, so including notable elements of fiction does not distract or detract from coverage of non-fictional subjects. They can all exist peacefully and in harmony with one another and the force. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 20:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As Hunter Kahn implied, it is hard to find sources for this given the sheer amount of fan-based material that doesn't count as reliable. The journal link is nice, but it hardly counts as significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it's hard to imagine having an article with two or three times more content than the only source it has. Have you found any you'd like to add, because I've drawn a blank. ~ Amory ( user • talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Well, that article does go into some detail on the building, and that's just based on its architectural notability (#3 mind you of all architectural features in the Star Wars universe!). There is also it's notability as a feature in the plots and storylines of numerous books, comics and movies. Here's another strong indication of notability, inclusion in Universalities: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases By Inc Icon Group International [39], right next to Jeff Zucker and Jedi Starfighters, both of which have their own articles, and here's a book on matte painting that has an entire chapter on it [40]. Truly the Jedi Temple is very notable and there are more than enough sources on it. The Jedi Academy I'm less sure about, so its content should maybe be merged to Jedi and other articles (like the new one on Architecture of Star Wars, but I don't think a stand-alone does any harm and there are probably sources out there. What kind of classes are done there? Is it an educational model for the future? How does it differ from our schools? What is it based on? How does it compare to Star Trek and other sci-fi futuristic depictions of academies? People have written on these subjects, whether it's available easily online I'm not so sure, but I think we should work to improve it rather than rush to delete it because it's not a good article yet. To do otherwise would be to side with the dark side. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • If you think there's something "we" should do, your most pragmatic course of action is to just start doing it. Asking or expecting others to agree with you doesn't tend to work. Therefore, why spend your energy trying to convince people who are very, very unlikely to be convinced? Our time on Earth is limited; don't use yours knocking your head against a wall. That wall doesn't care about your head, and you can't make it care. What you can do is take a more pragmatic approach. Idealism on Wikipedia leads to grief, 10 times out of 10. You wanna roll those dice? Really? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The lexicography link is merely a dictionary definition; it hardly substantiates the subject's notability. The blurb of production information can easily be integrated into the article on TPM. All your rhetorical questions are invitations for original research -- no one in the real world cares enough about this topic to offer up such material (which is why no one's offered up any sort of evidence to suggest any significant third-party coverage of this subject: none exists). -- EEMIV ( talk) 14:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a very notable part of an extremely notable franchise. The temple is covered in great detail in a number of the books and plays an important role in the movies. It is the scene of a pivotal part of one of the movies. Yes, I am a SW fan, so no need to point out that I'm part of the SW project. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm also a SW fan and part of the project. Can you point toward any significant *third-party* sources that discuss this subject in sufficient detail to substantiate your claim of notability? What text offers sufficient material from the real-world perspective to justify -- and substantiate -- an article on this subject? Being a setting for an important scene doesn't matter all that much -- that's the same reason we don't have article's on e.g. Willie Loman's home. -- EEMIV ( talk) 16:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I recommend creating an article: List of Star Wars buildings, parallel to other articles in Category:Star Wars location lists. Whatever content can be verified in reliable 3rd party sources can be included there, both for this topic, and for the related Jedi Academy, and for any other important buildings. Any building in that article that seems to have enough detailed information about it to split off as something more than a stub, can be split off when that becomes clear, leaving a {{ main}} template at the list. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect somewhere... I'd prefer Coruscant, the planet the temple's located on, although GTBacchus's idea isn't bad either. I'm not convinced there's enough real-world notability for the temple itself to justify a separate article - the journal source is nice but isn't very long, and it's nothing that can't be covered in design notes for Coruscant, Architecture of Star Wars or the film articles. BryanG ( talk) 05:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article is not in perfect shape. However, as several editors pointed out, it has the potential to evolve or the content to be merged with other related articles. So I am closing this as a keep. If the article does not change much in a couple of months, feel free to renominate it. Tone 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Methods of falling asleep

Methods of falling asleep (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay/how-to. This needn't have come to AfD but the Prod was removed on day of expiry with the comment "Remove proposed deletion tag as this could have saved Michael Jackson's life &c" Hairhorn ( talk) 17:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete/Merge. While the information is potentially helpful, we should avoid becoming too guidebookish (on the other hand, we do have articles on lucid dreaming methods as well). The article about insomnia has a section about treatment, and the information could be merged there. There are plenty of other articles as well where this would fit, at least partially. The major problem is referencing, as this article is mostly unsourced. These sleeping knacks are something between tested facts and feasible folklore. In the event of merge or keep, it must be made sure that sources are found to support the claims. Kotiwalo ( talk) 19:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • keep but seriously rework - The dePROD reason was less than ideal, but IMO the subject is notable and distinctive from insomnia treatment. I view it distinctive in that people often want to induce sleep for reasons other than insomnia. However, the article needs serious work as it is currently rather HOWTOish and also quite incomplete. There are doubtlessly numerous other non-medical methods not covered here that should be dealt with. The article also could use a better title. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This falls squarely under one of the ten things that Wikipedia is not ( WP:NOT)-- "2.7 Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal", and that includes guides on how to fall asleep. The usual suggestions are in here-- warm bath, glass of milk, take sleeping pills. I'll have to say that watching a movie of someone yawning is a novel idea, but Wikipedia specifically forbids "how to" guides, and there's a good reason for that in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit (or vandalize). It's not too difficult to see the consequences of a practical joke in an article about suggestions for how to lose consciousness. Mandsford ( talk) 21:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • weak delete i am of the opinion that this subject could be notable and encyclopedic, but here is treated more like a textbook or guide than an encyclopedic overview of information related to sleep research. the only source for this article currently cited is a loosely related clinical reference text that addresses diagnosis, cause, and treatment of a broad range of sleep disorders -- which appears to address the subject from a clinical rather than a "home remedies" perspective that the article currently embodies. as of right now, this article is not sufficiently sourced. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens ( talk) 23:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I have no problem with Niffweed17's opinion, and I don't believe that he or she is under an obligation to make further comments. I'll have to say that I have a real problem with comments on the order of "that's not relevant"; to me, I think that it's not much different than telling another person to shut up. While we tend to think of WP:CIVIL as applying only to profanity and direct personal attacks, it can also apply to "aggressive behaviour". It may not have been intended as a hostile comment, but that's how I would take it if it were directed to me. Mandsford ( talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
And how would you characterise your own comment? The point here is that User:Niffweed17's comments seem too focussed on the article as it is now rather than as it might be, e.g. "as of right now". This is an argument to avoid - see WP:RUBBISH - and so User:Niffweed17 is invited to address this point. Colonel Warden ( talk) 12:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I characterize my own comment as an observation about civility. If it seems hostile, then I apologize for the tone. However it is a valid observation. Mandsford ( talk) 15:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete the article is entirely inappropriate as it stands, including the title, which is a clear violation of "how to". to rescue, one would have to leave just the names of the few methods listed, rewrite entirely, excluding all howto language, and thenrename it. id say its easier to simply delete and start from scratch, esp. as the article as it stands is unacceptable. if it was just imperfect, or just incomplete, maybe a keep. Oh, and i just trimmed out language in the section on sleeping pills that was potentially dangerous to be here on wp, even for a few days. I think i was fully justified in doing this. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 00:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Very close to WP:NOTHOWTO. No objection to verifiable information being merged to Insomnia. Location ( talk) 04:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strongest possible keep Falling asleep is a major issue for a huge number of people. There is an entire range of pharmaceutical products and sleep aids addressing it. The subject is clearly notable, and concerns over content can be addressed by editing. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 07:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The article should be moved to sleep aids over the redirect as hypnotics (also called soporifics), a class of psychoactive drugs whose primary function is to induce sleep, are just one example. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 07:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment, again the linked article deals primarily with a medical condition and medical treatments for it. I think an article could be made here on cultural concept of trying to get to sleep, e.g. the common cliche of counting sheep. I'm not quite sure how it could be constructed (and the current itteration certainly isn't it), but I think there is an article to be written here beyond just medical issues.-- ThePaintedOne ( talk) 14:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I agree that an article could be written on the 'cultural concept', but not with this content or this title. Quantpole ( talk) 16:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Ok, so let's clean it up rather than deleting it.-- ThePaintedOne ( talk) 10:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Because there is nothing salvageable from this. You could start writing an article right away at a better title, and like actually using sources and so on. There would be absolutely no loss in this being deleted. I am normally a voter on potential rather than current state, but with an article like this I see no point in trying to preserve anything. Quantpole ( talk) 17:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
This is not a vote and your opinion should be discounted as you don't seem to have read the article lately - all sections are now supported by sources. Colonel Warden ( talk) 17:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Thank you for educating me on AfD. You're right I hadn't relooked at the article when I was just replying. Having done so, my !vote (happier now?!) is the same. An article cobbled together from google searches from people who know nothing about the subject matter is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Quantpole ( talk) 07:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Your comment seems inaccurate. For example, your proposed destination does not fully explain nor provide a citation for the rebound effect of alcohol, as this article does. And it has nothing to say of other sections such as hot milk. Colonel Warden ( talk) 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even with the addition of a few sources, it still reads like WP:HOWTO to me......maybe a whiff of WP:SYNTH. A bunch of 2-3 sentence sections doesn't really seem notable. Nor does re-stating the blatantly obvious to make it longer. How many people can honestly say that they never thought a dark, quiet environment is a help before reading this article? And no Col Warden, I don't care if some book calling itself an encyclopedia said it. It's still repeating the blatantly obvious. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep or redirect/merge to sleep. VERY well referenced article, meets all notability guidelines. Ikip ( talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • note to closing administrator the article has been completely rewritten since the nomination, with many additional sources. [41] Ikip ( talk) 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The difference between a howto (which we don't include) and a description of techniques (which we might) is subtle, and chiefly has to do with step-by-step instructions, wording, and the like. I don't have a strong opinion on exactly what should be in this article and what should be in Insomnia#Treatment for insomnia, but at least as of now there is relatively little overlap between the two articles, so if they are to be combined I'd merge rather than just claim one should supersede the other. I also echo the sentiment that the current revision is much improved from a week ago. For example, it is now well-referenced and much more well written. Kingdon ( talk) 21:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Sleep which would benefit from improvement. I disagree that it should be merged into Insomnia: the article is laudibly attempting to conditions which may or not favour the induction of the sleep cycle (I note for example the section on Alcohol) and studies around "conditions which encourage/discourage 'good' sleep" are not limited to insomniacs. On a side note, I know AfD is not a forum for debating content but the section Methods_of_falling_asleep#Sleeping_Pills steps rather too close to the realms of medical advice as currently written. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 01:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, with provisions. Those provisions being that the article be improved rather significantly, more so than it already has. Until It Sleeps alternate 01:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Dibi

Dibi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of substantial coverage in relliable sources. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Swolosis

Swolosis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is an article about an 'illness' that doesn't exist. Quanticle ( talk) 16:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Liepman Philip Prins

Liepman Philip Prins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NOTABILITY. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 16:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Nice genealogical article which would be welcome at Ancestry.com. The only possible basis for keeping it that I can see would be if his scholarly hobby made him a notable author, but just doing some research and apparently publishing it via vanity press does not satisfy WP:BIO. Possibly his library could make him notable, but where are the reliable secondary sources? Edison ( talk) 17:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Goran Zoric

Goran Zoric (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined with claims that WP:Athlete are met, but the player has made no appearances for a professional club as the Victorian Premier League is semi-professional. South Melbourne FC were formerly in the top tier Australian NSL competition, but not while the player has been at the club. Player fails notability guidelines as there is no significant coverage from reliable sources that I could find. Camw ( talk) 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  Talk 14:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Matthew Hales

Matthew Hales (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined with claims that WP:Athlete are met, but the player has made no appearances for a professional club as the Brisbane Premier League is semi-professional. Player fails notability guidelines as there is no significant coverage from reliable sources that I could find. Camw ( talk) 15:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn per decltype's request – Juliancolton |  Talk 18:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Chauncey Leopardi

Chauncey Leopardi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. – Juliancolton |  Talk 15:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Romanian educational system. Even in the present form, the article is useless. I am closing this as a redirect, when lists for schools in regions/counties are created, this can possibly be recreated as the upper-level list. Tone 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

List of schools in Romania

List of schools in Romania (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think we can agree the current text is garbage, but even if this became an actual list, it wouldn't be worth keeping. A 24,500-item list is way too long to be manageable, and of these, all but 1600 or so are primary schools and kindergartens, only a handful of which are notable. A list of secondary schools in Romania would also be too long; I could support a list of secondary schools in X County scheme (Romania has 41 counties and a capital city), but this is not it. We have Romanian educational system; any relevant statistical information can be mentioned there. - Biruitorul Talk 15:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

On the contrary. It's an indicator that a perennial hopeless unreferenced stub will not improve in foreseeable future. I would be more than happy to agree that the list will make say 10% of Romania's 13 thousand by the time of AFD close, but it won't happen. It won't happen by the next AFD either. NVO ( talk) 20:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
TerriersFan, let's not raise the "systemic bias" canard here. A dearth of relevant, encyclopedic articles on a particular country is evidence of such a bias; that, say, Viorel Hrebenciuc or Cristian Bușoi are still redlinks would point to a systemic bias (one that I have assiduously sought to correct); but not here. That we do not list all kindergartens in Pătârlagele or Broşteni is refreshing, and given WP:NOTDIR (which is policy), we should not attempt to do that. And that some have inserted similar directories pertaining to England does not justify the present experiment either (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). - Biruitorul Talk 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think we can agree that the nomination is garbage. We have lists with over 100,000 entries on Wikipedia - it's just matter of subdividing them, as needed per WP:SPLIT. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and maybe re-create as something else This is hopeless cruft, and, outside the few notable articles on high schools and national colleges, the links added to maintin it are simply inane: the one under Dâmboviţa County leads to, you guessed it, Dâmboviţa County. Who can this possibly benefit? If we really need a list of high schools (which is what the effectively is and will remain), then create a List of high schools in Romania, mention all such institutions but link only the notable ones (or, hell, link them all). But to imagine that the article could, should and will list all schools in Romania is to pretend that wikipedia is a bureaucratic institution, and shows much misunderstanding of how the educational system works in Romania (for example, the fact that many primary schools and gymnasiums are simply named with a number, and that most of them are located in places that are themselves just barely above the notability limit). Just specifying somewhere in the article on one county/city that it locates x number of schools would be more than enough for the relevant part of that information, and it could actually be potentially sourced. Now, personally, I'd endorse any measure to reduce the hybris of having such lists on a number of other countries, or even all of them (per WP:NOT), but: a) I don't want to spend eternity arguing with passionate supporters of the system in place; b) whatever the case for schools in Western countries, Romanian schools clearly rank even lower as notability goes. To "save" such cruft "on principle", because not doing so would threaten other lists, is an argument from ignorance. Dahn ( talk) 23:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Diego Lucio Rapoport

Diego Lucio Rapoport (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject exists ( [43]), but no in depth coverage from independent reliable sources or indication of substantial impact within or without of the field. WP:PROF and WP:GNG seem the most appropriate guidelines.

Searches performed: Google, Ask, GScholar, GNews (just in case), and Web of Science - 2/0 ( cont.) 15:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was White redirect, boldly. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

White lie

White lie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dicdef, no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

GreenGnome

GreenGnome (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a spin-off of GNOME for Microsoft Windows. It's not clear how this is notable. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't delete it ! GreenGnome is not a spin-off of GNOME. There are many shell replacements on Wikipedia as GreenGnome with less coverage but there aren't propose for deletion.

I can't find any reason for deletion in this list!

Daryl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.105.48.199 ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFF and Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services? I believe the question is notability, and the existence or non-existence of an article about another software project is not helping to establish notability of this project. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Not notable Whitespider23 ( talk) 19:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  Talk 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

All The Best: Fun Begins...

All The Best: Fun Begins... (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, Wii is not a crystal ball! Stating that a title upcoming is great and all but nothing else is added, sources or otherwise Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  Talk 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Go hatchet

Go hatchet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a slang dictionary or things made up one day Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  Talk 14:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

List of transfers who has been made in the Roman Abramovich era

List of transfers who has been made in the Roman Abramovich era (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was prodded - and was endorsed - until an anon IP came along and removed both. The reason given when prodded was, "This is a completely unnecessary list. Lists of transfers involving Chelsea since 2003 should be included in the club's individual season articles, such as Chelsea F.C. season 2009–10", and I concur. Plus you've got Wp:IINFO to consider as well (not to mention the gramatically incorrect title). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)| (talk to me)| (What I've done) 14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  Talk 14:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Todd Connor

Todd Connor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Low-level political candidate (for Water Commissioner no less) whose only claim to notability seems to be his homosexuality. Article is also poorly referenced. Closedmouth ( talk) 14:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, article came to my attention because it uses the horrendous phrase "ChicagoIand area", and because this position isn't notable even after being elected to it. Speciate ( talk) 14:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No different than thousands of other non-notable people. Non-notable career in either the military, government or private sector. Candidate for a pretty insignificant office. Fails notability all the way around. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Joe Chill ( talk) 22:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Runoko Rashidi

Fine... I (GSMR, the nominator) retract this nomination.
Crazy afrocentrist making bizarre claims that are not supported by genetic evidence, or archaeology. I previously added material that disproved many of his claims about African presences in Asia but I don't think that this is necessary given that the article does not satisfy WP:GNG, and is hardly a biography in the first place - that article is just a list of Afrocentric claims, most of which are very obviously false, as evidenced by the sources I added in these edits (all intermediate revisions were mine). GSMR ( talk) 14:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The nomination is flawed, focussing on how kookoo his claims are rather than whether there is evidence for notability. Google Book search shows 257 results for "Runoko Rashidi." He has edited a number of books or contributed chapters. He is mentioned in Journal of African History, but only a snippet is viewable: [44]. His work gets cited: [45] [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. He is called an "historian and researcher" by apparently independent and reliable sources: [51].Edison???
    • My point is not that his invalid claims constitute deletion of the article. The article as it is is not as much of a biography as it is essentially just a list of Afrocentric claims - which were, before my edits which contested them, largely one-sided (and unsupported outside Afrocentric "science", which is more or less the belief that every noteworthy accomplishment in history can be traced to someone of African stock). GSMR ( talk) 17:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
      • A bio article seems warranted, and it should conclude balanced NPOV coverage of his Afrocentric claims. There are numerous books to use to cover the scholarly output of the individual. There are sources to refute the unlikely claims. Thee are likely sources for biographical information, Wikipedia has articles on many wrongheaded scholars. The NPOV coverage expected in a Wikipedia article will provide a way of refuting any claims which are discounted by scholars, biologists, historians, or anthropologists. Edison ( talk) 19:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree that the nomination is flawed. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Fine, retracted nomination. GSMR ( talk) 20:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks - Ret.Prof ( talk) 20:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Walking Dead. Redirect for now, it is clear that in the present form this is not appropriate. Can be merged to other articles so I am leaving a redirect. Tone 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

List of characters in The Walking Dead

List of characters in The Walking Dead (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Conspicuous lack of independent, reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage of the topic. Only references are for extremely minor points. Whole thing is nothing but detailed trivia of no notability. Not a merge candidate based upon length of trivia and that the main article has similar problems. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, or possibly strip to the bone and merge. This section was way too big when it was in the article, and needed to be trimmed down to barely anything then, creating a new page for it wasn't a good solution. Lychosis T/ C 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Just because a series is notable doesn't necessarily mean we need an accompanying character list. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If we have this one I suppose we should have character lists for every film and more significant games. I am happy with strip to the bone and merge as an alternative, but most of this unsourced info should not go in the main article.-- Sabrebd ( talk) 09:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Keep it. The series itself is hard to write significant information about without having deletion as a lot of The Walking Dead's settings, facts and storyline is mysterious and elusive, and thus assumptions have to be made to give information on it. I wrote that piece in the main page to address what everybody has been wondering about. Back to characters; I suggest trim it down to basic facts, I overdid the descriptions but there's no reason to delete it. In response to the user above my reply, it doesn't make sense to delete this if articles such as The Simpsons and other video games have several more articles of in-universe information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Apokalips ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply

What other sorts of articles exist is irrelevant. The problem is this is focused on extraneous in-universe detail with no real-world notability. WesleyDodds ( talk) 23:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Move it to the wikia and strip to the bone I'm guessing none of you knew it existed. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 ( talk) 09:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Kitten (pornographic actress)

Kitten (pornographic actress) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only trivial coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. The Urban Spice Award isn't a "well-known award". Epbr123 ( talk) 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment One of the criteria of PORNBIO is whether the person is a member of an industry hall of fame. According to the article, she is. I'm not sure if the non-notable award applies to this criteria but I guess we have to evaluate whether it is equivalent to an AVN or XRCO Hall of Fame membership. Being an Urban Spice member would seem to indicate that the person has at least made unique contributions to interracial pornography. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  19:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Neurotically Yours

AfDs for this article:
Neurotically Yours (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been deleted multiple times and was create protected. It is no more notable now than it was at the times it has been deleted. SMP0328. ( talk) 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 11:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Lincoln Younes

Lincoln Younes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable young actor, Google search result here. Article was nominated for speedy deletion as WP:A7 (by myself), later changed to prod. Prod was contested by User:Lovinglincolnyounes with following edit summary: I have acctually made a biography on Lincoln Younes, because there was never one to begin with. I decided to make one, becasue i want him to be a noticed actor,i thought he was great on city homicide. I still think the notability is insufficient. Vejvančický ( talk) 13:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt. We have had more than enough of these essays - see this list. I am disgusted at the persistence of the authors and their "dumb insolence" in failing to enter into any discussion. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 23:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Racism in early rock music

AfDs for this article:
Racism in early rock music (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short POV and essayish article on the same topic that was deleted just yesterday. Tagged for speedy as a repost, but the text is entirely different from the one deleted yesterday, so doesn't qualify as a repost. Nyttend ( talk) 13:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

There are appear to be two simultaneous AfD discussions for this page. I will copy my comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in early rock music. Cnilep ( talk) 20:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 editor's mistake. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 14:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Editing Category:Animal breeds originating in Ethiopia

Editing Category:Animal breeds originating in Ethiopia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The original editor appears to have intended to create a new category in the Category: namespace. I am unsure if this is an appropriate category, but I tried to move the article to the Category: namespace and was not allowed to do so. Tckma ( talk) 13:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 11:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

All or Nothing (2010 film)

All or Nothing (2010 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced, WP:Crystal, WP:MADEUP Austrian ( talk) 13:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 B.l.o.w.. Tone 20:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Shroomin' At Moles (Single)

AfDs for this article:
Shroomin' At Moles (Single) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable music release; PROD contested. Stifle ( talk) 13:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Big Brother 11 UK

Big Brother 11 UK (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and lack of WP:RS. It has been announced that the programme will end after this series, but nothing else is known and nothing else will be known until March next year. If last year is anything to go buy, I'd also request a WP:SALT protection on this title, Big Brother 2010 (UK), Big Brother (UK) 2010, Big Brother 11 (UK) and Big Brother (UK) 11. Dale is supporting Lisa Wallace to win Big Brother 2009 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Planck constant. There is a consensus that this should be merged somewhere. Planck constant seems ok. Fixing the redirects and editing articles is on the other hand not something that would be discussed at AfD so I am closing this. Tone 20:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Introduction to Dirac's constant

AfDs for this article:
Introduction to Dirac's constant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no reason for this content fork of Introduction to quantum mechanics to exist. Any useful content can be merged to Planck's constant. TimothyRias ( talk) 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thinking about the title, I agree it would be a pointless redirect. I did change Dirac's constant to point to Dirac equation instead of to Planck constant (which does not mention Dirac's constant), and changed the Dirac equation article to say "... reduced Planck's constant (also know as Dirac's constant) ..." and to define "reduced Planck's constant". The target of a redirect should at least contain the search term, and the Dirac equation article should say what is meant by the "reduced Planck's constant". I am very rusty indeed on this subject, but I seem to remember that Dirac's introduction of the new symbol was a bit more than just an algebraic shorthand - it expressed an intuitive insight. Is that covered in the article on Dirac equation? Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The Dirac equation article jumps right in to the heavy math, and it simply gives a mathematical definition of h-bar in terms of h. The question would seem to me to be whether there would be the political will to provide an article on the Dirac equation that could be handled by bright pre-college types or other people with an interest in physics but without at least a couple years as a physics major or a math major. The unsigned message above is correct, I believe, in asserting that the prominence assumed by h-bar in Dirac's thinking was such that it prompted some people to rename it as "Dirac's constant."
Investigating the history of the thought processes by which Dirac made his equations might well help some students understand the significance of the math in Dirac's work. But just take a look at the Dirac equation article and tell me where 15-20k of popularized physics and historical background would fit. P0M ( talk) 03:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
It's also worth noting the discussion at Talk:Planck constant#Who_calls_it_.22Dirac.27s_constant.22.3F for an explanation of why the phrase "Dirac constant" doesn't appear on the Planck constant page any more. Djr32 ( talk) 06:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't know if Dirac himself used the term "Dirac's constant" - probably not. But I have a vague memory of attending a lecture he gave in the late 1960s and getting one of those "Ah-ha" moments when he introduced h-bar. That symbol is commonly used instead of h in the basic equation for the uncertainty principle. It has all slipped away. I would be grateful to someone who could write an article explaining the thought process in reasonably simple terms, as suggested by P0M. Maybe this "introduction" article could be a starting point. I understand just how difficult that would be. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
McEvoy and Zarate's Introducing Quantum Theory (which is generally reliable even though kept simple) doesn't have much on it. You could look at the article that blew Heisenberg's mind away in Sources of Quantum Mechanics. Since you had the insight, you may be able to recover it by looking at what he wrote. The insight that h-bar encodes is that the angular velocity of an electron (in whatever sense an electron can have velocity) is quantized. Angular momentum, spin, etc., all mean something, and what we see on a classical scale may be built on these more fundamental phenomena. The key thing that Dirac did, as I understand it, was to create a model that could produce a particle-appropriate answer if asked one kind of question and a wave-like answer if asked a wavey question.
I have to go back to the macro world of angular momentum as it applies to diverting the courses of large athletic or angry bodies, so until I get caught up on the mental/spiritual world, or the "zone" of, martial artists I'm afraid I won't be much help. (Fortunately I only have to think about it at this point.) Maybe there is something in one of Brian Greene's books that could get you started on writing the article you want. P0M ( talk) 01:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

This discussion has been mentioned at WikiProject Physics. - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Most Overall Number One U.S. Singles

Most Overall Number One U.S. Singles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unneeded article which repeats information already found in other articles (see List of artists who reached number one in the United States, List of artists by total number of U.S. number-one singles). Generally chart statisticians do not combine solo/group totals as this article does, and the inclusion of USA for Africa as part of these artists' number-one records is just misleading. Why is this needed when the data is already shown elsewhere? Incidentally the article's title is not formated correctly. - eo ( talk) 12:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Update I hadn't noticed the "U.S." in the title. Clearly it should be US-centric. Still, using Wikipedia as the reference makes the list somewhat meaningless. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

*Keep Using Wikipedia as reference is used in every chart article. I dont see that as a main reason for it to be deleted. Kelvin Martinez ( talk) 23:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

*Strong Keep The article is unique and I dont see it repeating the same material as other Billboard list except maybe the intro slightly. I've been looking for an article that combined number ones from from a notable artist solo/group work and though more should be added to this article maybe I dont see a reason for it to be deleted. Its unique. List of artists by total number of U.S. number-one singles also uses Wikipedia as a source as well. It looks decent maybe. It's been receiving help. Thoughtfulnes ( talk) 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete and Merge - I created this page though its not useless like the weirdo Fairdeal or User:Wether B) said, and also its not repeating the same information as to the great degree some are saying, I realize it would fit better in List of artists by total number of U.S. number-one singles. I Just wanted to see if It could stand alone when I made it. Many of the artist articles do mention the complete total career number ones on their page and they also mention each solo single that went to #1 show things on wikipedia are in some way constantly being repeated. So in the end I should be merged to List of artists by total number of U.S. number-one singles I think. The Source of Wikipowers ( talk) 22:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete Redundant as mentioned Whitespider23 ( talk) 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 21:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

1966 Australian network television schedule (weekday)

1966 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous AfDs on similar articles can be found here, here, here. Ironholds ( talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Ironholds ( talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone is interesting in merging content, let me know and I can provide it. Tone 21:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Surveys of academic opinion regarding parapsychology

Surveys of academic opinion regarding parapsychology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Prod reason was: "WP:NOT#Systematic review - this is just a collection of studies, already reported at Parapsychology." Anything not in the parent article that is relevant should be added, but most of this material should just be dropped. Verbal chat 10:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 In the Zone. Black Kite 22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

(I Got That) Boom Boom

AfDs for this article:
(I Got That) Boom Boom (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Breathe on Me (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two Britney Spears articles for songs that fail WP:NSONGS. No notability other than the fact that she recorded them and perhaps sang them live at one point. One was a "rumored" single, the other canceled. No videos or chart action... these are just album tracks with no stand-alone notability. Can easily be merged. In fact, both were nominated previously in 2007 and results were delete/redirect and somewhere along the way they were recreated. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breathe on Me. - eo ( talk) 10:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. There's too much unsourced, trivial information on these pages. If everything was reduced to notable, sourced info, it would simply be the fact that both were possibly scheduled to be singles but cancelled after her accident. Is there even a legit source stating that these songs were upcoming singles?? SKS ( talk) 16:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep & Redirect. Keep the Breathe on Me article and merge some of the (I Got That) Boom Boom content into Breathe on Me article and then redirect (I Got That) Boom Boom to In the Zone page (or even delete it), what 'bout that?. 77.46.225.180 ( talk) 11:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Breathe on Me must stay, its contents make it notable, maybe it hasn't charted but it's a well-known song, it should stay, I don't understand why some people want to delete everythin they see. And Boom Boom is also notable, it's her first rap collaboration, but if you wish to delete it, then move some of its contents to Breathe on Me page and then redirect or delete (I Got That) Boom Boom. PlatinumFire ( talk) 11:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment how exactly does "Breathe on Me"'s contents make it notable? It's mostly a bunch of critic review quotes, no doubt taken from a larger review of the entire album. It's all speculation: "...the song is sometimes considered as a single from In the Zone..." For "Boom Boom", a singer/rapper collaboration is hardly something notable or out-of-the-ordinary if it wasn't a big hit. - eo ( talk) 12:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment if Boom Boom was released as a single it would be a hit and don't underestimate the song's popularity. And Breathe on Me is much more popular worldwide since all these speculations, tour performances and remixes. PlatinumFire ( talk) 20:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment where are the sources to back up these claims? we can't create articles based on "what if"'s. - eo ( talk) 21:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 21:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

European University

European University (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a private business school that fails WP:CORP, and the article here is essentially acting as advertising. Their own web site is pretty slick, pushing all the right buttons -- but scratch the surface and there isn't much there to establish notability by Wikipedia standards. For instance, they have a "Press articles" section here to build cred, but it works out that most of these involve either incidental mentions ( here, bottom left column, in an article that has nothing to do with the "university") or paid placements in glossy travel mags ( here, pure advertising). If this is the best they can come up with, then they've basically done our job for us in showing how little coverage this thing has in reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 10:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

This blog post is interesting too, and the source in the comment about the revoking of their authorisation from the Catalonian government does seem reliable. This story from the Straits Times seems a reliable source too. I'm out of time right now but if we can add suitable wording and reliable sources like this to the article, I might be in favour of keeping it as a service to prospective students. Qwfp ( talk) 15:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I can see the logic of turning this into a stub that refers, on the basis of the reliable sources available, to its unaccredited status (instead of deletion). Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
While WP:ONEEVENT mentions only individuals, I think that the logic of it should apply to corporations/organizations, as well: if the only reliable sources that constitute more than incidental coverage relate to some scandal or accreditation failure, I think that this university would fail the GNG. If this were a perennial loser like Lyndon LaRouche, on the other hand, then we might keep on article on it. My feeling is that organizations of this type (assuming that it actually does lack accreditation or any significance beyond its lack of accreditation) shouldn't have articles on them: it would have to be monitored constantly for WP:SPAM and tendentious assertions that it has to be made more "balanced" to comply with WP:NPOV. I have an article from an accredited diploma mill on my watchlist and it isn't pretty. RJC Talk Contribs 20:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Qwfp ( talk) 10:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless bona fides of institution are proven. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC). reply
  • Delete. I had a chance to look over the links posted by Qwpf above, especially the news article, and I'd say that this place fails WP:CORP. It also doesn't seem to have generated sufficient scandal to pass the WP:GNG. No accreditation and incidental mention in coverage of another for-profit education organization owned by the same parent company. The most reliable information I can find about it comes from blogs where the posters complain about their experiences with it; that kind of blog is on the low end of the WP:RS spectrum. RJC Talk Contribs 04:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but discard the puffery in the current article and replace it with RS content that tells this outfit's real story. This is clearly an unaccredited institution, but it appears that it may have been accredited in the past (probably under different names) and it looks like it still has significant ability to market itself (the website is far more credible than the typical diploma mill site). Two solid sources are the Swiss Embassy in Singapore stating that it lacks accreditation in Switzerland [52] and the government of Catalonia revoking their authority to operate in Barcelona. [53] It seems to also operate in Barcelona under the name European University for Management Studies; that institution is listed in some directories ( example) and is listed as a candidate for accreditation by the European Council for Business Education. [54] I think it may be the same institution, based in Switzerland, that formerly called itself the "European Graduate School" and is listed as an unaccredited on the State of Oregon list. Searching on some of these other names is likely to yield some good sources. -- Orlady ( talk) 04:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • keep - though unaccredited it is a large institution that offers tertiary education in several countries. TerriersFan ( talk) 17:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)ov article is a good idea. Since when do we limit Wikipedia reply
  • Keep It's a degree granting institution of higher education, and verifiable information is available. Clear articles on these unaccredited colleges are very important things to do with NPOV, as we can. The good and bad things in life are equally important. One Event does not in any case apply to anything other than individuals. Nor should it, nor would there be any general consensus that it should. If this is proposed as a serious argument, the Village Pump is the place, rather than trying to remove individual articles on something that is deliberately not policy. We want to avoid scandal, but that is something we know how to do. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Withdraw -- I have done a bit of searching and discovered WP:UNIGUIDE, which I was unaware of previously. Since the guideline says that all colleges/universities are notable, the article on this one cannot be deleted. (I have some misgivings about such a sweeping statement, but this is not the place to resolve them. It does however beg the question of what a "university" is, what standard has to be met to merit that description...) Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Comment. So, every two-bit operation that calls itself a university gets to avoid WP:CORP because of a guideline that none of the editors of WP:N have linked to as being a related page, and a poorly worded one at that? The discussion page makes it clear that the only reason the guideline doesn't insist upon accreditation is because some religious institutions refuse to apply. I think WP:IAR applies here (I shiver to say it…). RJC Talk Contribs 14:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
      • At this point (given the existence of other delete votes) a withdrawal should be regarded just as another keep vote rather than as a reason to terminate the AfD speedily. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
        • To clarify: I would still be happy to see it deleted (though I think it's unlikely, given three keep votes). RJC, your post is precisely what my begged question is about. I took DGG's post to mean that all degree-granting higher education institutions are considered notable; when I found WP:UNIGUIDE I assumed this was the basis for his statement. But I agree that this is an undesirable situation. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Spamming has begun -- as RJC predicted, a "friend" of this institution has arrived on the page to start puffing it up again. I've left a message on his/her talk page User talk:Omrganews and reverted some edits, but I will of course need to stay clear of 3rr (unless those edits are considered vandalism, I suppose). Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Unqualified Delete in view of recent editing of article. Xxanthippe ( talk) 09:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC). reply
    • Comment. Since the only verified information we have regards accreditation, this article may need to be trimmed to the introduction and accreditation sections if it is kept (which seems likely, given the discussion here). Statements about the faculty's competence and alumni success don't appear to have any sources. RJC Talk Contribs 13:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Just because a private company calls itself a university doesn't make it exempt under WP:UNIGUIDE. If that were the case, every diploma mill would be considered notable. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Diploma mills can be notable, too. Some of us take pride in developing independently sourced articles about institutions that might appear to be legitimate universities but lack academic recognition -- and may be cheating their students (who think they are obtaining an education that will be recognized by the world at large) and/or the world at large (that unwittingly accepts fake or substandard credentials from these outfits). -- Orlady ( talk) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep as documentating its lack of accreditation could well be a valuable service to prospective students. I think enough of us are watching this article to deal with WP:COI edits, and take further action if needbe. Seems to me the way this article has been changed from an WP:ADVERT through uncovering reliable sources of its lack of accreditation is an example of Wikipedia at its best. It appears that this institution has used legal threats to suppress previous criticism. Now they've discovered they can't control the content of the article, they're probably hoping it gets deleted. Qwfp ( talk) 17:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable, but not accredited. The article needs to be closely monitored for POV elves removing the section on lack of accreditation. Doing a Google "Street View" search of their campus addresses leads to some interesting back alleys. Maybe they can compare notes with Linda Christas. - Richfife ( talk) 21:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 via CSD G4 by Orangemike. NAC. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

AfDs for this article:

Meteor Garden (Philippine TV series)

Meteor Garden (Philippine TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography. Fails WP:NFF. Previously deleted via PROD. Bluemask ( talk) 09:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Carlyle Group.  Skomorokh  12:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

CoreSite

CoreSite (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this is a non-notable company. Irbisgreif ( talk) 09:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Merge and also redirect to Carlyle Group. This is a significant company but it may not strictly satisfy the criteria for a standalone article. However, I see no reason to delete the content and, since the parent page is not particularly long, a merge seems a very good concept. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Can you articulate why you believe it to be non-notable? — fudoreaper ( talk) 02:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • The following things, combined, make me suspicioius. No single one cinches it for me, but togeather, they present a situation where WP:RS of significant third-party coverage may not be available.
  1. No results on Google Scholar.
  2. Google News returns only [55] (having a green building is hardly notable), [56] (this single article is hardly significant coverage), [57] (more about this person than the company). These don't convince me of any real notability.
  3. A straight Google search only returns results about a name change and the company's own site.

Togeather, these paint a picture that convinces me the company isn't notable. Irbisgreif ( talk) 06:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Merge per above. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As the creator of the page, I can assure you the company is of significant notibility in the data center, telecommunications, interconnection realm, not to mention significant verticals such as the financial, web 2.0, etc as many of the world's largest financial exchanges are housed here as well as a majority of the world's internet traffic. The company's One Wilshire data center is widely-recognized as one of the most connected points in the United States. I understand that data centers do not receive mainstream comprehension, but you have other articles that refer to CoreSite's product such as Any2 Exchange, and others that are apparently valuable, so by definition the company should be valuable then as well. Also, if the Internet is notable...then CoreSite is notable, as if CoreSite's buildings were removed from the planet...a majority of the internet would disappear with it. I think maybe some revisions to the page orientation will shange things...but remember the new brand was launched on June 22nd...so most of the news is still under CRG West. Also, Google searches of CoreSite produce far more than the company web page.-- User:mjobson
  • Google One Wilshire and see the 6.9 million listings that pop-up. That is CoreSite.-- User:mjobson —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC). — mjobson ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with prejudice against recreation before the heat death of the universe.  Skomorokh  12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Dribnif

Dribnif (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unverified neologism. I42 ( talk) 09:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

If you delete the term Dribnif you might as well stop allowing people to increase your knowledge base. What would you call a Dribnif if we had not told you the first term used to describe the subject?

  • Comment. Dear author of an unsigned comment (and therefore normally unworthy of a reply but I'm in a good mood), even if this made-up word was used by any relevant group of people, try to add it to a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. McMarcoP ( talk) 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

If you find persons that are honestly trying to increse your knowledge base annoying, then so be it. The term is real and honest and you and anyone else that ever drops an ice cube will be just have to pick it up and face your censorship. I won't annoy you anymore and I am sorry if that was the effect. Thanks for your consideration regardless.

  • Comment - Wikipedia's idea of "knowledge" is not just "something someone says is real and honest." Our fundamental principle is Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." JohnCD ( talk) 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Dear 70.235.19.172, what is annoying is not the article itself: it just doesn't fit into Wikipedia, first of all because it is a dictionary entry and Wikipedia is not a dictionary and then because it is not possible to prove its relevance. What is annoying is the fact that you come in all guns blazing, trying to use misplaced irony and sterile arguments to prevent the article from being deleted - and you do so anonymously. Good arguments would be sources (printed or - even better because easier to verify - online) that state that the word "Dribnif" (which I indeed find funny and would use but for the life of me I can't remember unless I read it less than 30 seconds before, but this is not the point) is commonly used and widely recognised. And this still wouldn't justify its inclusion in Wikipedia but only in a dictionary. Sorry. McMarcoP ( talk) 08:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NEO or WP:YOUREKIDDINGRIGHT, take your pick. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 Tone 14:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Henry Patterson

Henry Patterson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor. imdb does not list the actor at all (and the cited role is played by someone else); [58] suggests he may have been a double for the part. No reliable sources show any kind of notability. I42 ( talk) 08:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete votes were stronger than the keeps. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 21:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Michael Kapoustin

Michael Kapoustin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Negative biography of a borderline notable subject. He is not independently notable of Canada attempting to have him released from jail. Brandon ( talk) 08:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Neutral: On the talk page, another editor and I have been assured that reliable sources exist, and so there's been a lot of benefit of the doubt given. However, the original editors (one presumably Kapoustin himself) have so far failed to provide satisfactory copies of these (that pass WP:V). These editors also argue that the article is negative (and, at one point, libellous). Any contentious material is sourced however, and so not a WP:BLP violation. Assuming a consensus of delete, I see no reason why these sources can't be added to a recreated article at a later date when they are suitably available. The article and discussion have now turned to insulting editors' ability and professionalism, as well as notification of attorneys (no legal threats however). This has gone far beyond productivity; I don't see any progress on the talk page anymore, and so perhaps the best option would be to wipe and start over – maybe the two other editors ( User:MKapoustin and User:Resident22) could be spoken to by a third-party to clear up anything? Fribbulus Xax ( talk) 09:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: No objective reasons for deletion. Jingby ( talk) 09:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there's enough coverage over a sustained period of time that he passes WP:BIO and not simply as a WP:BLP1E. Despite nominator's statement, this isn't a negative biography. Nyttend ( talk) 14:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    The article isn't negative if you frame how the subject would like, that is a story of his struggle to fight his unjust imprisonment at the hands of Canada and Bulgaria. However, how it is currently (and most likely always will be) written the article is negative. Brandon ( talk) 19:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - As one of the editors that has been accused of libel and had my ability and professionalism maligned by the subject of the article, I shall only point out the subject has been given numerous opportunities to provide verifiable substance to the article to counter any statements that were believed to be inaccurate. I am not sure how this would fit as a WP:BLP violation since the current text appears to be adequately sourced. As has been pointed out, the talk page has deteriorated to threats and borderline uncivil comments followed by some "interesting" further allegations in a RPP. Unfortunately, the subject and the original creator have chosen to "attack a straw man" rather than providing verifiable substance. ttonyb1 ( talk) 15:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - while he's had some coverage, I don't see why he's really notable. the article was originally created as a soapbox for his claims of unlawful imprisonment; that seems to be the subject's main drive, as judged by the talk page comments and the ongoing issues with legal concerns. While there may be a little more to his story than can be covered under WP:BLP1E it's still borderline, and because of his situation the article is not likely to be easily balanced, and will always likely lean to a negative POV. Not worth the trouble or the electrons. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Infobox reads "Known for: Imprisonment for embezzelment in Bulgaria". What else is he known for? Unless there is some significant coverage in reliable sources about a potentially wrongful imprisonment, I don't see this as being more than one event. BLP1E. Lara 20:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete While there's moderate coverage (see here), there's barely any coverage outside of Canadian sources; one small mention comes from the Dallas Herald, and a few from the Sofia Echo, located in Bulgaria (where he was imprisoned). It seems like nobody else noticed, which indicates to me the lack of notability. I say 'weak' only because the amount of sourcing available could potentially fuel a stub, though. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 20:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The story about Maher Arar is also about one event in his life, that has changed everything - why Michael Kapoustin doesn't have the right to have a story about the event, that changed his life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resident22 ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Bill Dawes

Bill Dawes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no third party reliable sources to attest to his notability Theserialcomma ( talk) 07:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Alex Arden

AfDs for this article:
Alex Arden (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage and doesn't pass the current WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 ( talk) 07:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under the G3 criterion. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 06:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

James Stefiuk

James Stefiuk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax. Zero google hits for James Stefiuk with modifiers football, NCAA, or kicker. Hard to believe an NCAA recordholder isn't more prominent. <>Multi-Xfer<> ( talk) 06:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep, per WP:HEY.  Skomorokh  12:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Sara Erikson

Sara Erikson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP for a non-notable actress. "Best known for" role is a recurring minor character not mentioned in the article for the show. No reliable sources provided, none found. Contested prod. SummerPhD ( talk) 16:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 05:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete The best references I could find were this article from Variety and this article from Richmond Times-Dispatch. Although she is the subject of both sources, neither qualify as "significant coverage" of her. Cunard ( talk) 07:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as meeting WP:ENT ("significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions") and meeting WP:BIO ("If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability") per the sources found by User:Cunard... two is multiple. MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 01:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - WP:ENT implies notability. However, no subject is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, two is "multiple", but the coverage is in no way substantial. - SummerPhD ( talk) 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment With respects to User:SummerPhD... WP:BIO says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". No where in these two sentences is the word "implied". Moving down to WP:ENT, it says "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Again, no where in this sentence is the word "implied". The multiple significant roles are verifiable. That meets WP:ENT. WP:V does not itself have to be substantial... just verifiable. He is covered in more-than-trivial, even if less-than-sunstantial, fashion in multiple reliable sources. This meets WP:BIO. Again, and with continued respects to you, by your asssertion, one would have to somehow read that even the multiple sources as allowed by the second caveat of WP:BIO would have to themselves be substantial... even though no where does the caveat demand "significant and in depth". If that were true there would be no need for that caveat, as it would be redundent. I see the caveat there because it recognizes and allows that substantial is not always available. Yes substantial coverage is always preferred, but if lacking, WP:BIO specifically allows multiple, less-than-significant coverage, as long the coverage is not trivial. I am unable to read WP:BIO in any other way than how it is written. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 01:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy. (When in the edit screen, my use of italics apparently looked like I was claiming the guideline used the word "implies". I do not claim that, I claim it implies as stated.) Meeting WP:BIO implies that the subject may be notable. Without significant coverage in independent reliable sources, no subject is notable. Yes, less-than-substantial coverage in individual sources can be overcome by the use of multiple sources. However, we start with wanting significant coverage in independent reliable sources, find that this subject has no sources with substantial coverage and is barely covered in the two sources we do have. Do we have substantial coverage? No, nor do we have sources to combine to make up the multiple sources adding up to substantial coverage. We have insubstantial coverage in two sources. If there are more sources, we might have something. At present, we do not. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment With respects to User:SummerPhD... Yes, WP:BIO is a guideline and not a policy. So is WP:GNG. Since the article passes all applicable policies, we need then move to guideline to determine if it merits inclusion. If every BLP were mandated to ALWAYS meet WP:GNG there would be absolutely no reason for WP:BIO and the subordinant inclusion criteria to even exist. WP:GNG is not meant to be exclusionary. The subsequent inclusionary criteria of WP:BIO were set in place for those instances where WP:GNG might not be met. Not meeting one guideline is not an ipso-facto failure of another. Wikipedia does not demand that all articles be perfect, nor does it demand they be made perfect immediately. As the subject meets WP:BIO and WP:ENT, and the article has the potential to be further improved and so improve WIkipedia through the course of normal editing and over the course of the actress' career, I have opined a keep. MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Gentlemen it doesn't matter one iota which is a guideline or policy, per the essay, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion, section: That's only a guideline or essay
Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" may be misleading. Some may also consider it insulting, as it essentially suggests that their opinion (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented at deletion debates are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. "The page you linked to is an essay" is not one of them.
Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest "WP:EXAMPLE is only a guideline, we do not have to follow it". We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made.
The importance is how convincing your arguments are, not whether something is or is not a guideline or policy. Ikip ( talk) 01:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep Sigh, I know how the deletion game works. Nominator states it is not notable. Editor provides references, nominator says it is not enough references, editor provides more references, nominator then says those references are trivial. So here are around 30 more google news references to the "couple". [59] lets start arguing triviality now. WP:BIO and WP:ENT are much, much less controversial than WP:N is. But the article well sourced, meeting all guidelines, including notability, so that also is irrelevant. Ikip ( talk) 01:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing administrator the article has gone through significant improvements, with several added references, since it was nominated for deletion. Ikip ( talk) 02:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article well sourced but needs expansion. TomCat4680 ( talk) 05:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. For Hollywood actors I look to Variety and she has numerous mentions there, many trivial as one would expect of an aspiring career but coupled with the voluminous number of roles in notable films I'm loathe to consider her career as anything but emerging. I haven't trolled through the thousands of possible sources here but I have little doubt that enough can be brought together to build a good article. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. All this talk about passing WP:ENT is a smokescreen. She hasn't had significant roles. "stripper #2", "desk clerk", "hot girl", "girlfriend" and "various" are not significant roles. Nor is appear in 5 episodes of an 86 episode series. And "mentions" in significant magazines aren't significant coverage. A 256 word article from her hometown paper (Richmond Time) saying she got an insignificant role in a TV show? That isn't significant coverage. A 2 sentence announcement of a role in Variety isn't significant. And the announcement isn't even accurate. It says a "lead" role. She is billed below "full figured neighbor" and barely ahead of "weather woman" and "Henderson twin #1". Maybe some day she will be notable, but it hasn't happened yet. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Pi Rectangle

Pi Rectangle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of why this is significant. No sources. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 15:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Medicaid managed care

Medicaid managed care (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, I believe this has been to AFD before, there are still the same issues as before, this is written like an essay and the relevance and notability is unstated. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 05:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - There are claims to notability such as the useage of Medicaid managed care which is support by references ("Currently, managed care is the most common health care delivery system in Medicaid"). The notability is claimed and supported. Taymaishu ( talk) 06:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment At most (although i still firmly believe it should be deleted) it should be a blurb under medicaids article. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 06:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Siebel Systems. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 21:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Customer experience blueprint

Customer experience blueprint (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What the heck is this? It's so filled with buzzwords I can baerly tell that. Google shows little besides some buisness manuals and indecipherable junk. Ipatrol ( talk) 02:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  1. The volunteer is invited to contribute to the sum of human knowledge.
  2. They are presented with a blank form upon which to write a free-form, unstructured article about their topic.
  3. Experienced editors assist the volunteer by correcting technical errors such as mistakenly placing references in the edit summary.
  4. Ignorant or hostile editors propose that the article be deleted.
  5. Ritual combat determines the fate of the article.
Colonel Warden ( talk) 07:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 05:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Larry Fitzgerald. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Marcus Fitzgerald

Marcus Fitzgerald (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ATH since he has never played in a pro game, fails WP:GNG per no "significant coverage", shown here. Also notability doesn't transfer among relatives. Giants27 ( c| s) 01:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - His kin does not earn him notability, and thus far he hasn't done anything to earn it himself. If he ends up signing with and playing for the UFL, he'll have it instantly. Until then, I'd say no.► Chris Nelson Holla! 02:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 05:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Mysto & Pizzi

AfDs for this article:
Mysto & Pizzi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any reliable sources to backup the claims made here, despite extensive searches, and suggestions from other editors. The only verifiable piece of information is the fact that they "remade" the "Somebody's Watching Me" track for the ongoing Geico ads. Everything else is unverifiable by reliable sources, as far as I can tell. Please note that I'm not disputing the facts (necessarily), but I am saying that I can't seem to verify anything, and that the remake of one song for a commercial doesn't seem to confer notability. I therefore have to say the article should be a Delete, though if anyone finds sources that I couldn't find, I'd certainly reassess. As a note, the Google News hits above are all the briefest of trivial mentions. -- Transity ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 05:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Germán Bustos

Germán Bustos (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extensive research has yielded no sources to verify this subject's notabilty. I have exhaustively gone through all of the programs for the Philadelphia Lyric Opera Company which have been collected and preserved at the Free Library of Philadelphia and I have poured through the archives of both The Philadelphia Bulletin and The Philadelphia Inquirer held in the Urban Archives at Temple University to read the reviews for opera performances by the PLOC. I found that Bustos was a minor performer with the company, playing smaller roles in only two productions with the company. He wasn't even mentioned in the newspaper reviews of the productions. However, he did have lead roles with a number of very minor opera companies in the Philadelphia area, most of them community and or student organizations. Likewise, attempts at finding sources to verify his international appearances (I have access to a number of opera magazine archives and other opera related sources) have yielded nothing. In short, Bustos was a very minor opera singer and in my opinion he fails to meet even one of the 12 requirements for notability listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Singingdaisies ( talk) 01:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Interstate 726

Interstate 726 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speculation; also a user dumped an entire report in here. Rschen7754 ( T C) 03:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

*Weak Keep- if the speculation can be taken out of the article, I think this article can be kept; otherwise delete this article. keystoneridin! ( talk) 04:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- I tried to find articles to make this better, but I alone cannot do it. I think the best course of action is to delete this article. keystoneridin! ( talk) 21:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • That doesn't help the closing administrator at all. You can help the closing administrator by looking to see whether and how content and deletion policies apply in this case. Equivocation won't help. Uncle G ( talk) 04:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • This edit, this edit, and indeed this very discussion page's own talk page (q.v.) confirm that Tstarl0425 ( talk · contribs) is the "Travis Starling" who authored the report that purportedly confirms this subject's existence and who created and published the WWW site that is the only other source cited. So what we have here is a person citing xyr own unpublished report, and xyr own WWW site, with no means for identifying the author or checking xyr reputation for fact checking and accuracy, as the sole sources of information on a subject. That falls entirely foul of our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies and guidelines on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That you can make use of free WWW hosting at Google Sites doesn't make your writings trustworthy, M. Starling. Get your ideas published properly. If you truly are producing report for a DOT, you'll know what that entails. Wikipedia is not a free WWW hosting service nor a publisher of first instance. Uncle G ( talk) 04:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This sounds like a hoax. Google comes up with zero hits outside of this article. Dave ( talk) 05:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - almost certainly a hoax or the equivalent proposal made up one day. -- NE2 05:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete, per Uncle G. I've looked at Interstate/US highway corridor studies before, none with fewer than 100 pages and none with the scant amount of detail that the copy-pasted one in this article has. In addition, corridor studies are an early step in planning the general route of a highway, and would not have specific mileage or exits/interchanges fleshed out as the general alignment would not yet be in place. If there were a corridor study going on for a proposed Interstate highway, there would be information about the project available from the DOT(s) involved, newspaper stories about the proposal, and public hearings to discuss the results of the study and possible alignments. No such information or news came up in my simple Google search...the only positive hit was this article. -- LJ ( talk) 07:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm not sure how often this happens, but, I have read the discussion and realise that without a doubt this is not at Wikipedia Standards. This Interstate is still in the proposal process. However, once this Interstate is approved, enough relible sources are out there, and the article can be made up to Wikipedia Standards, I will re-create the article. Thank you for your time in helping to make, what should one day be the article, a better one. I can also assure everyone that this is in no way a "hoax" of any kind. Travis ( Talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The delete comments outnumbering keeps by a factor two-to-one, but Articles for Deletion is not a vote, and the outcome is decided by strength of argument. Notability is not defined by subjective judgements of importance, but by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Such coverage is convincingly asserted below, and editors favouring deletion failed to make a case as to why it is insufficient.  Skomorokh  12:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Recycled Percussion

Recycled Percussion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable unsigned band. Only claim to fame is one appearance on a TV talent show. <>Multi-Xfer<> ( talk) 03:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep – It's not clear from the nomination statement what research was done to try to determine whether or not this band meets the notability guidelines. As it happens, this band has had articles about it written in multiple sources over the years, and it easily meets the general notability guideline, or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Examples of the coverage includes:
    • Sullivan, Brenda (November 15, 1997). "Band shows way to reuse refuse", Hartford Courant, p. B3.
    • Whitney, D. Quincy (April 4, 1999). "Old stuff makes new statement: Artists make use of recycled objects", Boston Globe, p. 9.
    • Buckley, J. Taylor (May 27, 1999). "Behold the beauty that is the bucket", USA Today, p. B9.
    • Hill, Jean Laquidara (February 7, 2002). "Junkyard rhythm has a great beat: Recycled Percussion draws crowd", Telegram & Gazette, p. B4.
    • Wright, Diane (April 21, 2004). "Group pounds out career in music world: Recycled Percussion doesn't need a drum set", Seattle Times, p. H29.
  • Strong Delete - Per nom. Gage ( talk) 04:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on coverage. Duffbeerforme ( talk) 05:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment- Although I think this article is certainly not notable, I have cleaned up it in its entirety to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia. I think we must wait to see how far the band has advanced in competition before deleting the article. If the band does make it to the finals and finish in fifth place or further, they should rightly have an article on Wikipedia, but if the band is eliminated from the competition earlier than previously stated than the article should be deleted. Cpudude91 ( talk) 15:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - unknown, insignificant band. Koblizek ( talk) 00:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not for being an unknown - they are certainly known - but the only noteworthy thing that they seem to have done thus far is Americas Got Talent. A knee jerk page doesn't need to be created for every act that comes along - otherwise wikipedia will be littered with the wreckage of forgotten "acts" that know one really remembers nor cares about. Simply put, at this time that are known, but not notable. 06:42, 2 September 2009 76.176.9.168 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 03:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Maria Mercedes (Philippine TV series)

Maria Mercedes (Philippine TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography. Fails WP:NFF. Contested PROD without explanation. Bluemask ( talk) 02:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 11:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Confederate history of Missouri

Confederate history of Missouri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was created by a user who has continually vandalized, added unsourced material and blatantly supported fringe historical theories in articles such as Missouri, Missouri State Guard, and Confederate States of America. I've removed most of the unsourced information from the article and the remaining article makes little sense. Any material covered here is already covered at Missouri in the American Civil War. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 02:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes No Maybe

Yes No Maybe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). References are mostly not WP:RS; the single one that is an RS gives an incidental mention to YNM. Falls far short of the standard set for companies. Tagishsimon (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep-Article is fully substantiated on Google as well as the company website [ [63]]. keystoneridin! ( talk) 04:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment-[ [64]],[ [65]],[ [66]],[ [67]]. Shall I go on? keystoneridin! ( talk) 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 22:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Spliff politics

AfDs for this article:
Spliff politics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced original research in the culture of cannabis smoking, with problems not fixed since the first nomination over 2 years ago. It was "no consensus" wiuth votes of kind "Keep with the proviso that the article is cleaned up and properly sourced," which was not done. I reckon the article blew its fair chance. - Altenmann >t 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • On the contrary, the sources that I came up with in the last AFD discussion were added to the article by the closing administrator and unsourced content was removed reducing the article to a stub. That the subsequent expansion wasn't done well is just a reason to re-stub once again and insist upon proper, verifiable, original research free, expansion. (Note that there have been "Somebody do something!" calls on the article's talk page, with people not realizing that they are somebody, and they can do something.) There's no deadline, AFD isn't a hammer, and we all have the tools to excise bad content. Uncle G ( talk) 03:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • There you go. It's stubbed once again. And I didn't have to exercise a single administrator tool to do so. I could even have done it without my account. (It was an editor without an account that re-added the bad content, notice.) Uncle G ( talk) 03:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Is this a neologism? I see mild usage in google news/books, but nothing that gives significant coverage to the term Corpx ( talk) 09:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Have you read the sources cited in the stub?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 09:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
      • No, but assumed that if such sources were in abundance, they'd be used to cite claims in article, as opposed to just being listed under "Further Readings" Corpx ( talk) 09:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Well on second thought, I looked up page 64-65 of Illegal drug markets: from research to prevention policy and failed to find any significant coverage for the term in those pages. Most of the other books in the further readings dont specify page numbers Corpx ( talk) 09:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Also fail to see any significant coverage for this term in James Bong's Ultimate SpyGuide to Marijuana, which is also listed as a further reading. Since the entire "further reading" section was added en masse by a user, I have my reservations about the validity of the rest of the entries. Corpx ( talk) 09:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
        • I strongly suggest opening your eyes and reading, instead of taking such a superficial approach to sources that are cited. You haven't even looked at the correct pages, going by the URLs that you supply. And you'll find a description of what potentially useful information is in each source — which doesn't necessarily involve the precise two words "spliff politics" and so which will involve actually reading the source in order to extract — given in the last AFD discussion. Read that, too. You haven't even read this AFD discussion, where you'll find explained who "a user" is and where what xe added came from. Uncle G ( talk) 13:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
          • You say, "which doesn't necessarily involve the precise two words", in other words, the wikipedia page is Original Research. Mukadderat ( talk) 23:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
            • Tosh and nonsense, and as an editor of long standing you should know both policy and how to evaluate sources better than that. We don't just look for arbitrary phrases with search engines. We read. You can start that reading by reading what was said about the sources in the prior AFD discussion. What's in the sources and how they relate to the article/subject at hand has been handed to you on a platter, two years ago, and you aren't even reading that. Uncle G ( talk) 00:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in current form, as per Uncle G. -- œ ™ 15:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    Merge. Not much here to keep. Better to merge what little is left into drug subculture to expand that article. Also, this is only my personal view but, I have problems with the title.. It just brings up the image of a bunch of stoners sitting around and chatting about politics, two things which don't really go well together. :) -- œ ™ 03:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Uncle G & OlEnglish, and also because a brief explanatory article is useful when so many other articles already link to it; this is far from an orphan. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 22:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm not joking, but something about you and the article nominator going around the whole website right after I said that, and wiping out links to this article without awaiting the result of this afd, in an attempt to orphan it, doesn't quite seem above-board. Can't you at least wait for consensus? If the consensus is to delete this article, and this article is deleted, then I will have no objection to your doing so. Please be patient. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence presented that the term has standard usage. The list of "further reading" are general references about cannabis smoking, i.e., hardly a reference. Mukadderat ( talk) 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm going to run with Merge to drug subculture. On reviewing those sources I can reasonably access, I agree that there is room for content on "Spliff politics" on Wikipedia, but I have not found coverage substantial enough to warrant a separate article; and I tend to take the view that a smaller number of articles, each with more content and more eyes watching it, is preferable to fragmented content scattered over many pages, each observed only by a few editors.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    Welcome to the mergists club. :) I've changed my !vote to merge as well, there's not much left of this article since the latest removals and I'd rather go for higher quality articles rather than one-paragraph stubs. -- œ ™ 03:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Good find with drug subculture article, SM - I didn't know about that one, but I too can see the argument for merging there, so that would be an okay second choice with me. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 06:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Charles Mulisa

Charles Mulisa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited. Jujutacular talk contribs 01:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Check Your Shit in Bitch!

Check Your Shit in Bitch! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill ( talk) 01:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to suggest that the list is trivial or indicriminate, and thus unsuitable for inclusion. Editors wishing to rewrite the page may simply recreate it under a different title if necessary. – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

List of oldest NHL players

List of oldest NHL players (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains no important, or notable, information. iMatthew  talk • take my poll at 01:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Well written aside from being massively incorrect in many places, as noted. If you don't like IINFO, how about WP:GNG? I would be quite curious to see the sources that argue it is notable to have been both a former hockey player and old. Reso lute 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Certainly not indiscriminate, as the universe of NHL players over 85 years old is limited. Don't agree with the nominator that the information is unimportant or non-notable. Not convinced that the information is not verifiable, even if two sources don't provide enough information, as there are generally many sources for dates of death (not just hockey-specific sources) if anyone wants to investigate them. Rlendog ( talk) 02:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If you don't mind, could you name all of the 85 year old players in NHL history? I'm finding it difficult to think of any, myself. All I see here is a list of old people who just so happened to have played hockey at one point. Reso lute 03:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • KeepComment As Rlendog mentions the list is certainly not indiscriminate. The information can be verified, just not easily perhaps. - DJSasso ( talk) 03:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — DJSasso ( talk) 03:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Question What was the source used for this list? If it was hockey-reference.com, or a similar site, then much of this list is surely wrong (as I am interpreting it, anyway - I don't quite understand why the "Living NHL players" only includes some of the players who are identified as alive). Those sports database sites are fine for stats, but I've never known them to be diligent about adding death dates. Zagalejo ^^^ 03:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: "Very well written article?" Err, it's pretty much crap. The "Unknown" section is a laughfest in of itself, with two people on it older than any verified human ever to live. Beats me where the main section draws its information, but Total Hockey reports the 2nd through the 10th players as being deceased; this is leaving aside readily researchable tidbits such as the listing for Hobie Kitchen (3rd on the list), where the last reported sighting of him was as a wino on the streets of New York in 1934. The article completely lacks any references at all, and this falls under the category of an article so flawed that the only thing to do is delete it and start from scratch, with an eye towards a more exacting title (such as List of oldest living NHL players) and thorough verification through reliable sources.  RGTraynor  03:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this, Re-create as an accurate, well-sourced article. The subject matter may be notable, but not in the current state. There are still many mistakes in the list, even after Marc87 deleted the first original five entries. Of those on the current list, many are deceased according to a book published over 10 years ago. Those that want to keep the article should at least clean up the article to a reasonable state and re-create, as RGTraynor points out. List of oldest living Major League Baseball players is a well sourced and fairly accurate depiction of the subject. This article is poorly sourced and very inaccurate. Patken4 ( talk) 04:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in its current form its too inaccurate to stand as an article. if someone wants to step forward, research and reformat the data, and recreate an article more like the aforementioned baseball player article, great. I understand eventualism, but as in biological evolution, every life form must be viable in the present moment, even as it transforms over time into new adaptations. this article doesnt stand as a work in progress to my eye. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete - Absolutely trivial list that serves no meaning. What does a current age of a retired hockey player have to do NHL or the player's career? Should we start listing NHL players by height? weight? glove size etc? Corpx ( talk) 09:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as such a list is definitely relevant to hockey fans. But, as Patken4 suggests, rewrite and resource. Rather than creating a new one, I think it would be easier to keep the present article as a template but rework it thoroughly. McMarcoP ( talk) 10:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Mm, I see that Marc87 has made a lot of changes, and the article's scarcely less of a mess. Every player "older" than 102 has been removed, players older than 90 are in "List" while players younger than 90 are in a new "Living NHL players" section (???). The renamed "Unknown" section has the ages removed for the top 20 players only. So ... has the list gained anything in accuracy. No. Total Hockey lists seven of the new top ten "Living" players as being deceased, and since (as Patken says) it's ten years old, I don't hold out high hopes for the other three. Come to that, there's this thread that if accurate - and these folks sound like they've done some legwork - means the top twenty-six "Living" names on this list are inaccurate [68].  RGTraynor  13:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as this appears to be more of a trivia article. GoodDay ( talk) 22:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, because there is not evidence that the subject matter (oldest NHL players) has received any attention. If there is coverage in sources of 'oldest NHL players' then I would recommend keep. Quantpole ( talk) 13:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for many reasons, the most pertinent being that it's original research. Unlike the MLB list, which at least started off having a source for the oldest living players, there is no such list for NHL players except for a rough estimate on the hockeydb.com forums, which of course is not a reliable source. Also, as has been pointed out, this list is very very inaccurate. I've compiled a more accurate list at User:Canadian Paul/Hockey on this topic, but the reason that I never moved it to mainspace is A) There are waaaay too many players in the "possibly living" category and B) It's a product of my research and, more so, research at the hockeydb.com forums, so either way not a reliable source. In any case, if the decision is to delete and recreate with a more accurate version, then my version is less detailed, but far more accurate. Only players who are 90+ are listed, but there's hidden text up to 1924. I note, however, that I wouldn't recommend a re-creation because the sources just aren't there to create a fully accurate and verifiable list. Just noticed that someone posted the link to hockeydb... mine is essentially the same, though there are differences. Cheers, CP 02:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Being the oldest surviving player (and hence also listing previous now dead candidates for comparison) is in fact often the only notable thing any source ever comes up with for a hockey player, even for someone who played 490 league games, see this obituary for example. The nomination reason is totally weak, and was disproveable with a 5 second google search, and it thus strikes me as a speculative nomination from someone who just doesn't like the article, or doesn't need it, or otherwise has no interest in it, a.k.a on of the numerous arguments to avoid. It is not inherently unverifiable, nothing based on simple facts such as d.o.b. ever is. I haven't looked into it, but if this nomination is the result of a dispute elsewhere in another sport, it should be thrown out on sheer principle. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It should only get more accurate over time. The topic of oldest living player is one that comes up regularly among those with interest in the sport. That is what the article should focus on. I think it needs work and probably should be renamed oldest living NHL players. I agree that it is not valuable on the level of many articles, but that is a POV. As for sources, the database of the Society for International Hockey Research is accurate and reliable for birthdates. While many players from the old days of hockey have disappeared without reliable reporting of their deaths and that is a problem, it is diminishing. The Hockey Hall of Fame also has information on births and deaths of players. Alaney2k ( talk) 18:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Rewrite Is this worth completely rewriting to be oldest ACTIVE player? That's something far more source-able, I imagine. Baseball-Reference keeps track of it for MLB, for example. Staxringold talk contribs 01:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete..but... Needs sources and confirmation to save. Otherwise who is to say its accurate? perhaps the scope of the page should be scaled back. right now i have alot of original research worries, nothing can be verified, are any of these people alive still and can this be verified. The article istelf acknowledges some players cant be verfied. But basically it seems like original research. I would think a list of oldest players who are actively playing or have played is more relevant (ie Gordie howe, Chris chelios). just my thoughts Ottawa4ever ( talk) 16:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A pointless list that I believe runs afoul of WP:NOT#IINFO. Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Moises Lino e Silva

AfDs for this article:
Moises Lino e Silva (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable graduate student. Previous AfD incomplete as speedily deleted. Bongo matic 01:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. The only arguments presented to keep the article do not explain why it should be retained. – Juliancolton |  Talk 14:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Louis Puig

Louis Puig (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional self biography page. Notability not established by the sources quoted (the third party sources I checked do not include the name "Louis Puig"). Checking Google News, the name "Louis Puig" in the context of Miami does appear but apart from being arrested, the articles seem to list his name as being part of disco events or as a club owner rather than establishing his notability. The clubs as part of the Miami scene may be notable but Puig does not appear to be based on the sources. Ash ( talk) 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep, cleanup style. See also " Club Space" article. - Altenmann >t 02:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The Typewriter Tape

The Typewriter Tape (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:MUSIC, bootlegs are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. SummerPhD ( talk) 00:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 12:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Defenders Motorcycle club

Defenders Motorcycle club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There are a dozen or so strictly local-interest news stories that mention the Defenders Motorcycle Club, for example: [69], [70], [71]. Many of them are nothing more than calendars of upcoming local events: [72]. Searched Google News, Bing, and the various databases available via the Seattle Public Library and found zero regional or national news stories, and zero books or magazines about the Defenders Motorcycle Club. Note that being a military/law enforcemnt motorcycle club is not unique; DMOZ has whole categories filled with them: [73], [74] Dbratland ( talk) 16:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The Crystal Caravan

The Crystal Caravan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not clear how this band meets notability guidelines. lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources.. Contested prod. Only claims a single recording on a non-notable label which was only recently released. Might be notable one day but not today. Both articles were created by a member of the band (see [75]) RadioFan ( talk) 16:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following article about the only album from this band. It fails WP:NALBUMS and was also recently created by same editor:

The Crystal Caravan (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment The Music Street Journal doesn't appear to be much more than a well presented blog. Nearly all the reviews interviews and other content, including that article, there appears to be written by it's webmaster. So it represents just one man's opinion (though he seems to have a lot of opinions). The Music Street Journal itself has been cited a few times by other Wikipedia articles and I also see it's been referenced in news articles a couple times. Its a reasonable reference to use but doesn't do much to establish notability here. -- RadioFan ( talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The only source I found was the Music Street Journal article, which doesn't appear to establish notability. There are no other sources on Google News Archive or elsewhere, so this article should be deleted. Cunard ( talk) 01:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thomas Aquinas Maguire. Tone 14:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Three Little Dreams

Three Little Dreams (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this "series" of wordless books. Joe Chill ( talk) 15:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Billionaire. Tone 14:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Centibillionaire

Centibillionaire (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable term for wealth. In Google News, no articles have used this word in 2009, though there are a few that have used Centimillionaire. As the term is not in current practical usage, it fails wp:MADEUP and is not useful as an economic term as Trillionaire is far more likely to be used. Ash ( talk) 13:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eureka (TV series). this is a redirect so any useful content can be accessed and merged. Tone 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Global Dynamics

Global Dynamics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional company that provides no evidence of notability or relevance outside of the television show. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 09:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - a major plot device in the series where most of the stories are centered or derived. Article exists as a split from the main article per WP:Summary style, as the article grew beyond a usable size. -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 06:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • The subject's relation to the plot has no bearing on its encyclopedic significance. Rather, you should base your argument on it having sufficient independent media coverage to merit an article, not some inherent noteworthiness of the topic itself. Even a relatively minor plot element could be notable if it had received enough media or academic attention, while some major elements will invariably fall short for the same reason. Dominic· t 09:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion regarding editorial decisions should continue at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Witta, son of Wecta

Witta, son of Wecta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this mythological or real person. It looks like the only coverage is "A.D. 449 [...] Their leaders were two brothers, Hengest and Horsa; who were the sons of Wihtgils; Wihtgils was the son of Witta, Witta of Wecta, Wecta of Woden. From this Woden arose all our royal kindred, and that of the Southumbrians also." Joe Chill ( talk) 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 12:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Jeni Olin

Jeni Olin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by User:Hangingloosepress; apparently promotional, only one book by publisher of same name as creator Falcon8765 ( talk) 03:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Yamil Cortés

Yamil Cortés (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ATHLETE - no actual caps Ironholds ( talk) 02:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  12:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hellbilly music

Hellbilly music (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not a recognised or noted genre. I can't find significant coverage, and some of the users given (Hank Williams? bloody hell) obviously aren't "metal". Ironholds ( talk) 01:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) ear 20 Although very underground, the term "Hellbilly" has been being used since, at least, the year 2000, usually in reference to the music of Hank Williams III. Other notable bands which could be considered part of the same scene include Joe Buck and the Legendary Shackshakers. Also, in reference to Ironhold's comments about Hank Williams not being 'metal', I would suggest that he picks up a copy of the album "Assjack" which was Hank III's first official metal release (although several bootlegs had been circulating unofficially for years, and was being played at his live shows as well). reply

Although I have problems with the initial article; especially the fact that I believe Hellbilly music, although having metal influence, also draws just as heavily from hardcore Punk, anyone who denies the existence of the genre simply does not know of what he or she speaks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.229.176 ( talk) 07:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hellbilly Hellbilly music is a real genre and Hank III definitely has metal influences. As was mentioned his Assjack album is a good example as well as others. Then he's got songs that aren't very harcore as far as guitar playing is concerned, but there's plenty of "death-metal-like vocals." "Long Hauls and Close Calls" is an example. And Punk rock is there, but it mostly comes from metal. Usually a song that mixes country and punk rock is considered Psycobilly. But Psycobilly has elements of Rockabilly and other genres as well. Hellbilly is a bit more centered. It refers to various country genres and metal genres mixed together, while Psycobilly is more like just punk rock, psycedelic rock, rockabilly, jazz and other types of music mixed together. I suppose Hellbilly could be considered an offshoot of Psycobilly, or a subgenre or whatever. But it's definitely not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Tall ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Modernist moved the info, so nothing to merge Staxringold talk contribs 01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

3,000,000 BC in art

3,000,000 BC in art (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list with one item. Very unlikely to expand. No proof that the one listed item actually occurred in the year 3,000,000 BC. There may be evidence that it did occur in pre-history, but 3,000,000 BC is an oddly specific date. 650l2520 ( talk) 00:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I mean, three million years. That's a whole two million years before Raquel Welch.-- Ethicoaestheticist ( talk) 22:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Delete I created the original article. This debate has come up before with some other prehistoric list of years in art, and what has been ruled then is to not have such a specific year article when we're going so far back. So I recommend either a broader article can be created with a list that covers a wide range to which the content of this article could be merged with, or delete this outright for the reasons people gave above (due to the lack of true scientific specificity, not the Raquel Welch argument). My $0.02. Keithh ( talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (without retaining any redirect) -- this and all other items in the Paleolithic section of List of years in art into a single list. That article contains a list of "year" articles back to 1000 AD. I am sceptical of the merits of such articles, but they are not the subject of this AFD. There is then nothing back from AD 1000 to premote prehistoric periods. Such lists are a navigation aid, but categories generally do it better, but in this case the category is clogged up with an exceessvie wealth of detail, which needs splitting my centuries. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Delete This article does nothing that Prehistoric art and Makapansgat pebble do not. Cerebellum ( talk) 17:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 12:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Nicolò Urbinati

Nicolò Urbinati (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. a number of claims made in the article cannot be verified. hardly any third party coverage [77]. LibStar ( talk) 01:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Non-admin closure and merge/redirect, nominator agreed to allow me to close and redirect. [78] [79] Ikip ( talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Julian Heller

Julian Heller (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable candidate in Ontario provincial by-election. Recommend redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. Suttungr ( talk) 00:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jabberwocky#Glossary.  7  04:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Chortled

Chortled (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simple dictionary definition, should be deleted. As an alternate, if important enough perhaps link to wiktionary [80]  7  00:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator - redirect to Jabberwocky#Glossary per Uncle G.  7  04:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Redirect per comment by Uncle G. SoCalSuperEagle ( talk) 04:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • 7, why not write out what you mean. Most editors, even veteran editors have no idea what WP:DICDEF means. "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Can't editors redirect to wiktionary without a AFD? Ikip ( talk) 01:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Fair point. Expanded above. Yes, editors can redirect to Wiktionary without AFD. However not every word in Wiktionary needs to have an article in WP. I personally feel that this article does not need to exist here at all, even as a redirect, but I submit to the community for possible deletion, and as an alternative a redirect might also be appropriate. Thanks.  7  01:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It should very probably exist as a redirect, at the very least in order to stop this happening again, and that redirect should be to Jaberwocky#Glossary, which not only duplicates this content in its entirety (albeit with better sourcing), but links to Wiktionary already. Uncle G ( talk) 03:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Agreed Uncle G - I hadn't found the Jabberwocky article. I'll send a note to SoCalSuperEagle and see if he wants to reconsider and we can close this early.  7  04:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I just took a look at the Jabberwocky article; after having compared its definition of the word chortled to the contents of the article Chortled, I agree that a redirect would be better than a delete in this case. SoCalSuperEagle ( talk) 04:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Gil Baker

Gil Baker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established. JaGa talk 21:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 12:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Silent Hill (film soundtrack)

Silent Hill (film soundtrack) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be nothing but original research regarding an album that does not even exist, the article even states that no such soundtrack was released. I can find no evidence that a film score ever existed. magnius ( talk) 22:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 11:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Genci Cakciri

Genci Cakciri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this person may actually be notable, if the claims made of his having been national tennis champion (for Albania) are indeed true, but no sources have been provided, and the article is not at all written in a way suggesting encyclopedic value. This guy does exists and is (or has been until recently) a competitive tennis player - he competed at the 2007 Summer Universiade in Bangkok. [81] He has, however, no profile page with ATP.com [82], [83] and no mention at the Albanian language wikipedia. [84] And Albania does not a Davis Cup team, [85], so nothing on him can be gained at daviscup.com. Then as to the chief writer of this article, the contributor was asked over 2 years ago to provide sources and apparently just shrugged this off as irrelevant [86] Mayumashu ( talk) 00:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice towards re-creation if reliable sources can be found. He may be notable, but I cannot verify it per WP:V. The above link indicates that he is a coach at the junior level. Location ( talk) 03:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but only if it can be properly sourced. I'd say that a four-time national champion, even if in a country that is not noted for its tennis players, does have a certain degree of notability. McMarcoP ( talk) 10:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The WP:V issue aside, I don't think even a national championship passes WP:ATHLETE. First off, there is professional tennis and there is no evidence he competed as a pro. As an amateur, the Albanian national championship doesn't qualify as " the highest amateur level of a sport" since tennis is an Olympic sport as well as in events like the the Pan Am games etc. There isn't a single notable tournament listed for Albania. Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Windows 95. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Development of Windows 95

Development of Windows 95 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks references. Source mentioned on talk page is a blog, not a [WP:RS


  • 'Comment right well, that i'll remove. as for references, the only otehr site that i can find with windows chicago listed thourgholy are the three entrires at this link: http://toastytech.com/guis/indexwindows.html other than that, there is no place that has chicago talked about as good as toastytech. and for windows memphis, theres a little more, but not much more than win chicago. it's not my fault that no one cares about old, buggy beta software.

Linuxlove8088 ( talk) 00:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

redirecting windows chicago page to windows 95? i would prefer merging the chicago page into windows 95 rather then have my articlce lost for all eternity :/

Linuxlove8088 ( talk) 01:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

There are 2 types of redirect/merge, one keeps the history, one deletes the history and redirects the page. I think the history should be kept. Ikip ( talk) 02:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Why? Is there valuable information in the history?-- RadioFan ( talk) 12:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

sorry, i'm still a newb to wikipedia stuff. Linuxlove8088 ( talk) 16:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I suggest using the term "!my article" when referring to an article you wrote ;-) -- Kjetil_r 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Or "my !article" to be really controversial and confusing. Greg Tyler ( t • c) 23:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Frank Mangano

Frank Mangano (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability for the person. Sure his book got to number 4 briefly in Amazon's Books > Health, Mind & Body > Aging > Diabetes category ( currently No. 91) but does that make it notable? — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 00:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom; author of article appears to be using Wikipedia to post biographical articles. (I deleted a second one posted earlier today.) -- Ckatz chat spy 02:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 12:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Rafaella Hutchinson

Rafaella Hutchinson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT . third party mentions verify her role on TV [87], but simply being a child actor on TV does not grant automatic notability. LibStar ( talk) 00:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
but they're mostly passing mentions, not in depth coverage about her as an actor or person. LibStar ( talk) 01:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3 Tone 14:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Los Tomsons TV

Los Tomsons TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I reiterate my reason behind the PROD: Wikipedia is not your own web host, nor is it for TV directory listings. MuZemike 00:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_26&oldid=1142645644"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE