Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 7 January 9 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy close wrong forum, moved to mfd. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Kalajan/John Cradle and User:Kalajan/BWW

User:Kalajan/John Cradle (  | [[Talk:User:Kalajan/John Cradle|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) View AFD
User:Kalajan/BWW (  | [[Talk:User:Kalajan/BWW|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) View AFD

Search does not turn up anything. Obviously fake. See WP:NOTMYSPACE. ₰imon K S K 21:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 by MastCell ( talk · contribs). Previous discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Marshall Hyde, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Hyde. Non-admin closure. Anturiaethwr Talk 03:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Byron Marshall Hyde

Byron Marshall Hyde (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This article was deleted before, no reliable sources about subject, just one self pubhlished book. I think this person is revered from a group of patient activists for an illness but there are not good sources for it. RetroS1mone talk 00:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Adelleda

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

Hoax. Duffbeerforme ( talk) 09:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the hoax:

The Footsteps Die Out Forever (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Reasonable Explanation For Life (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adelleda (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Soviet Reunion: The Early Years (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Maguire II and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnum Opus (album) Duffbeerforme ( talk) 09:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Philip J. Cutrone

Philip J. Cutrone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Actor with tenuous claims to notability at best. Articles on this person have been speedied six times and deleted by prod once under various titles. Author says he's made his best effort to find references--is it enough? -- Finngall talk 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Further comment: looks like TANYS is an association of non-professional theaters [1]. Not sure what this means as far a notability.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there are no articles about the subject to establish notability. The mentions are just that, mentions and are not sufficient to support notability. The award is local in nature and also not significant enough to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Can you point to specific articles turned up by the search that support notability? The NY Times review is only a brief mention, and as as far as I can tell, that's the best source that can be found. All the others are his name in a cast list. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I second that question. If I missed something, I will be happy to revisit my "delete". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinneed ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete- "significant roles in multiple notable" - not yet. "large fan base or a significant "cult" following" - no evidence, and these sort are loud. "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" - no evidence, and it would be covered. Not an unknown performer, but not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinneed ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Michael Isley

Michael Isley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Michael Isley is not noteworthy from an encyclopedic perspective. I cannot believe this super-lengthy article about somebody who is yet to be considered famous has managed to stay on Wikipedia for this long. I personally know Michael Isley, and in no way have his musical endeavors been as successful as this article implies. I've read articles about my favorite bands with far less text. Moreover, it's difficult to come across this article unless specifically searched for, so unchecked vandalism will no doubt ensue... especially when more Drexel students get word of it. The primary writer of the article appears to be a certain StevieJBrenstur. Well, that account contains no information about anybody and I feel this implies that it was created specifically for this article to be written. The most likely scenario is Mike wrote it himself. The quotes have no citations and the only references are links to the band's website and venue affiliates.

Sorry Mikey but you're not famous yet. tbone ( talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 06:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Rational_Response_Squad

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

This article is about a small online community, doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic relevance, and seems to be primarily maintained by members of its own community. For these reasons it should be reconsidered for deletion. Nathan Orth ( talk) 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 20:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Craig Considine

Craig Considine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Claims of notability (films showed on CNN/BBC.. "published extensively in numerous newspaper and journals across the globe") are not backed up by references.. BBC news clip is an interview (?). Google shows minor coverage from non-notable sources Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete When I saw the page creator summarised the creation as "This is notable because he is an up and coming film director and scholar affiliated with world renowed Islamic scholar Akbar Ahmed. if there's a problem, then i must be missing something. sorry!" I thought, "now there's not a good opening!". "Up and coming" usually equals non-notable (yet). May be some day. Not yet. I've looked at the beginning of the Noam Chomsky interview "Directed and edited by Craig Considine" posted on iReport and saw "iReport.com is a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post.". Self-published, in other words. And very amateurish camera work, to my mind. I didn't see any mention of him on the BBC clip, which stated "we" interviewed implying the BBC did it. Being viewable on YouTube doesn't exactly confer notability. To me, the article is puff. Peridon ( talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment: I thought that the claim of being published extensively in numerous newspapers and films showed on CNN/BBC got it past CSD. -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't trust 'claims'.... Peridon ( talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment My reasoning for not sending it to CSD is based on this from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: "A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 16:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Braves-Mets rivalry

AfDs for this article:
Braves-Mets rivalry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

*Delete-The problem with comparing it to the Philils/Mets rivalry is this- That article is sourced, with multiple sources independent of either one. There's plenty of info in there, such as info regarding the statements by Jimmy Rollins and Carlos Beltran. The Mets/Braves article simply has no sources, and almost no content. If sourcing and content can be added to the article, i'm very willing to change my vote to keep. (Disclaimer: I'm a Phillies phan). Umbralcorax ( talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

After the changes that have been made, my vote is changed to KEEP. Umbralcorax ( talk) 02:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a lack of sources on an article that can be easily sourced and improved is not a reason for deletion. The Braves-Mets rivalry is long and notable. The only real reason to delete this article would be if we got rid of the majority of rivalry articles. I'll go dig up some sources, but seriously, go ask a Mets fan what they think of Chipper Jones and I'm sure you'll have your answer. (Not a Mets fan). SMSpivey ( talk) 06:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I just added some quick text and references from the NYTimes, AJC, and NY Daily News. Pretty sure those are respectable sources to start with. SMSpivey ( talk) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As I stated in my nom for the first AFD, this subject is really non-notable as an encyclopedic topic. (Mets-Phillies article notwithstanding, as Other Stuff Exists.) The previous incarnation was deleted "partly because" (inserted for clarity) it had become full of uncited POV rants by both sides, and especially against Chipper Jones. These issues can be better covered on the Braves and Mets pages anyway. As a deleted page, the creator should have requested permission to recreate the page, and as such, this really should have been speedied as a recreation, even though the content was not duplicated. Consequently, a decision of no consensus should result in the page being deleted, not kept. - BillCJ ( talk) 06:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • As for basic notability, the sources I added clearly assert that the subject is notable. People coming in and adding POV about certain players can be expected in rivalry articles and should be appropriately policed. However, fear of vandalism is no reason to not include a clearly notable topic. As for the recreation issue, I'm not sure what should/will happen along those procedural lines. SMSpivey ( talk) 07:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Obviously I disagree that it's notable enough for its own article, as did enough other editors that it was deleted previously. As to properly policing and "fear of vandalism", short of a permanent semi, policing the previous article proved to be practically impossible, as anyone watching this new article will soon find out. But that was never the main reason. - BillCJ ( talk) 07:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • As of right now there are articles referenced that deal directly with the rivalry from the NYTimes, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp, ESPN, and the NY Daily News. These are all sources independent from the organizations, the articles run over a number of years, and they were produced from different regions/countries(not all of which were from NY or GA). As far as I can tell, these confers notability via WP:NOTE. SMSpivey ( talk) 08:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Amply sourced. Thus, notability is established. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 09:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's absolutely nothing in the article about the rivalry between the teams themselves. The only example given regards an individual player, not the Braves as a whole. The local articles cited read more like the local papers trying to make something out of nothing, and the national ones don't discuss the rivalry as a whole but specific instances regarding individual players, which do not a rivalry make. As Clara Peller would say, where's the beef? Perhaps the page should be moved to Rocker-Mets fans rivalry. - Dewelar ( talk) 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The subject is notable, as established by the sources aready present. And there is more that can (and eventually should be added), such as the 1999 NL East race and NLCS, the very tight 2000 NL East race, Chipper Jones' remarks during that period and the Met fans reactions, to a lesser extent the Tom Glavine signing(s) and renewed intesity to the rivalry during the 2008 season. Rlendog ( talk) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I will out myself here as having absolutely no interest whatsoever in baseball ... however ... in the news media one of the toughest "beats" has traditionally been the sports teams, and of those, baseball is heightened further yet. Baseball is an American institution and intertwined in a city's psyche (with fields being a major investment) and fans heavily entrenched in all manner of details. The sports writer covering each team only has one game each week, generally, yet has to write something relevant and interest-ish every day that week. Based on that, I have little doubt that if such a rivalry exists, it will have been written about at least by each city's major newspapers. Also see Category:Baseball rivalries. -- Banjeboi 18:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Indeed, such an article could probably be written about any two teams that compete in the same league, much less the same division, especially if the two teams happen to be good at the same time. The question is, does that make it a "rivalry" that deserves an entire article rather than, say, a paragraph or two in the article of each of the involved teams? For me, a rivalry has to reach Yankees-Red Sox, Dodgers-Giants, or Cardinals-Cubs proportions before meriting its own article. I've been a Twins fan for fifteen years, and I'd argue against even our own "rivalry" with the White Sox. - Dewelar ( talk) 19:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • "I have little doubt that if such a rivalry exists, it will have been written about at least by each city's major newspapers." And it has been. For example:
[3] (oops, that's the Braves own website, not a newspaper) [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Rlendog ( talk) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Multiple independent coverage would suggest that for a significant amount of our readers this is notable enough and the coverage would meet the GNG. It may be true that articles revolving around "any two teams that compete in the same league" et al could be written but we'll have to cross that bridge in its time. As far as I can tell, the challenge here is to write a good enough article so that people like me might read past the lede. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep Closing administrator, please keep in mind, since this nomination editors have added signifigant sources, and completely rewrote the article.
    The nominator should not be patting themselves on the back, or getting any satisfaction or credit from these improvments to the article: Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process states: Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
    Also: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort. travb ( talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • "Keep - I agree with user travb's comment about Wikipedia:Potential. I also think documenting the aspects of this rivalry is a very worthwhile cause, and even in this early stage of the article's history it's clear there are quality references available, and that there are editors interested in improving the article. If someone is going to put in quality time working on a Wikipedia article, I say more power to them, let them go for it. Monowi ( talk) 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, every two teams that play each other have a rivalry. Sources do not support this very short article--an article that is short because the rivalry isn't worth mentioning. 66.57.190.166 ( talk) 06:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 06:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Cyprus massacre

Cyprus massacre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

An editor has blanked this and there seems to be a great deal of heat over whether this event occurred or not. I did a google book search on 1570 and Cyprus and one of the references I found indicates that it did not: Dictionary of Islamic Architecture. An extraordinary claim as made in this article should have extraordinary sourcing. Here, we have no sources. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete ( A7) by Protonk. Non-admin closure. MuZemike ( talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The World Union (NS2)

The World Union (NS2) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

List of U.S. and Canadian cities by last major professional sports championship won

List of U.S. and Canadian cities by last major professional sports championship won (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Interesting list (last time a sports team from each major US/Canadian city won a championship), but IMHO WP:NOTDIR may apply in this case. I can't find a firm WP rule though. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 05:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Doesn't really fit under WP:NOTDIR. I think there is some interest out there as to what cities have lacked a major sports championship the longest, which is why I created the list. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Maybe it does not belong in WP, but I do not know of a rule against this sort of article, and there re many lists which are far less likely to be referred to (e.g. the next 10,000 in line to the British throne). Collect ( talk) 15:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original synthesis, not very well done and not very useful. I get the premise-- years refers to how many years it's been since the city had a championship in what the author postulates as the "Big Six" of sports leagues-- MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MSL and (since the NFL doesn't have Canadian teams, the CFL). The original synthesis has other problems too-- San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose are all part of the "San Francisco Bay area" (San Jose won the soccer championship in '03), as are Washington/Baltimore (D.C. United soccer champs in '04), while Green Bay, Wisconsin is its own metropolis. I guess that under those rules, it's mostly accurate, although the Cleveland Browns won several NFL championships after the Indians won the World Series in 1948. Mandsford ( talk) 02:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The claim of "original synthesis" would apply to almost all lists, n'est-ce pas? As for utility, is the list of potential heirs to the British throne of much utility? Heck, how many lists are of great utility? Collect ( talk) 13:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights were pretty good. Mandsford ( talk) 16:02, 4 January 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! 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Jax Money Crew

Jax Money Crew (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This article is about a counterstrike team. They claim notability, but only have one secondary source - an interview in a counterstrike webzine. My sense is this entry serves to promote their team, rather than having encyclopedic value. Liberal Classic ( talk) 04:32, 3 January 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! 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hustle episodes. ( non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hustle (series 5)

Hustle (series 5) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hannah Montana upcoming episode list

Hannah Montana upcoming episode list (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I originally prodded the article, but then realized that it had previously had a prod applied and was removed so here we are. This article, based on the title, is for upcoming episodes of Hannah Montana. Wikipedia is not a Television Guide. Additionally, the article's current content is about already aired episodes which are covered more appropriately in the season articles: List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 1), List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 2), and List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 3). Whpq ( talk) 21:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 20:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The Grave (Killswitch Engage Album)

The Grave (Killswitch Engage Album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

A (new) user created an article that perhaps the new album of Killswitch Engage. But until then I did not find anything related to the fact, and the article contains no information, or a release date set, seems a case of crystal ball. Canniba loki 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/John Cradle and BWW

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

Vincent velez

The result was speedy delete by User:Iridescent as WP:CSD G2. Non-admin close. JulesH ( talk) 21:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Vincent velez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

— Archon Magnus( Talk | Home) 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G7, requested by creator. El on ka 21:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Current situation of the Republika Srpska

Current situation of the Republika Srpska (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hucametrics

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

A Google search turns up nothing. Appears to fail WP:NEO Ecoleetage ( talk) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Beanpot (ice hockey). – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Wayne Turner (ice hockey)

Wayne Turner (ice hockey) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable amateur hockey player who fails to meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:N or the WP:HOCKEY notability requirements for hockey players. Djsasso ( talk) 20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. — Djsasso ( talk) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Northern Link, Brisbane

Northern Link, Brisbane (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Seems to not merit an article yet due to WP:CRYSTAL. This is a proposed project, one that has not yet been approved. If it gets approved and is notable itself, such as Boston's Big Dig construction project, then it can be given an article at a later time. Firestorm ( talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm ( talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep, it's snowing. (NAC) -- J.Mundo ( talk) 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Lynn Memorial City Hall and Auditorium

Lynn Memorial City Hall and Auditorium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I'm pretty sure that a city's City Hall is not notable in and of itself. Lynn's City Hall appears to be a historical location, though, so i'm not sure. Opinions? Firestorm ( talk) 20:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm ( talk) 20:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so that should justify its notability. Swampyank ( talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • comment It very well may be notable because of that, I just don't know what the current consensus is on historical locations and city halls. I'm not voting on this AFD; I just listed it to get a consensus. If it appears that its historical status is enough to justify an article, I have no problem keeping it. Firestorm ( talk) 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 06:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Inherently funny word

AfDs for this article:
Inherently funny word (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

There have been two previous AfD discusssions on this, in 2004 ( here) and 2006 ( here), both of which resolved to keep the article. Given that over two years have passed and community consensus may have changed in that time, I'm re-nominating it for deletion. I don't have a view on its inclusion-worthiness myself, so I'm taking a neutral stance. SP-KP ( talk) 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I think a change of name would be a good idea. The title as is does seem to suggest that the article talks about words that are inherently funny rather than words which people have suggested are inherently funny. Basement12 (T. C) 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and close the nomination. The nominator just reopened the debate because two years passed without providing any sort of reason why it should be deleted or why consensus would have changed. Obviously our rules have changed since the 2004 debate were personal opinion was given lots more weight, but the 2006 discussion still seems to hold. - Mgm| (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
"Objection overruled, motion for summary judgment denied" I'm afraid we don't have a res judicata rule in Wikipedia. In law, one of the requirements is that the parties are the same as they had been in the prior litigation. Mandsford ( talk) 14:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

American Gnostic Church

American Gnostic Church (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable movement/organization. Speedy was declined due to "removed speedy, notability asserted per the founder of this movement (Aleister Crowley) having an article; in addition, religious movements do not qualify under A7", but the group was not founded by crowley as the article itself states, plus I considered it an organization and I think they call themselves one. They are listed here and called an organization [10] Anyway, not notable, a few brief mentions in WP:RS, nothing more, most of these 7 mentions [11] are not even about this org, but just happen to use the phrase, others are by the group themselves, or a passing mention in poems, [12] this is the best WP:RS which we can definitely be sure is about them, [13] the mention is one sentence saying the year they were founded. Sticky Parkin 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Sticky Parkin 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. This religious organziation is too new, and has not garnered sufficient notoriety, to be considered notable. Bearian ( talk) 20:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sticky Parkin sums up the lack of notability for this religious movement. I've done several searches across a number of websites and have been unable to find any sources that cover this movement in depth. I removed the speedy tag for an erroneous reason, but the tag itself was erroneous because notability was asserted by the The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, a source in the article. Although this source mentioned American Agnostic Church in only 1 sentence, IMO this article asserts enough notability to require an AfD discussion. Cunard ( talk) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- seems to me that the nom' provides plenty of evidence about its notability (or notoriety for that matter, although that is a not a requirement). Encyclopedias are excellent sources for Wiki and mention in one, however briefly, is sufficient to merit inclusion here. -- Michael C. Price talk 11:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 05:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Jewell Towne Vineyards

Jewell Towne Vineyards (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This article fails WP:NN and WP:CORP.

Claims "oldest winery" when it started in 1982. Emphasizes number of medals won, which is meaningless especially when the medals list reveals that they were not for international competitions and predominate in silver and bronze, nothing to brag about, achievable by amateur winemakers. Numerous reliable sources discuss gimmicks and marketing ploys of medal factory competitions.

In spite of the sources referenced, this is a non-notable winery. Sources such as Boston Globe look respectable at first glance, but are actually local-interest coverage. Other sources are minor local papers.

Please also review the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Jewell Towne Vineyards before adding your comments. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. At time of time of nomination, the claim is oldest currently active winery, no emphasis of number of medals won or other gimmicky marketing ploys, or otherwise editorializing and first-name cozy language. Sources somewhat exceed smalltown local paper sphere.. It is just about WP:NN and WP:CORP. MURGH disc. 11:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - sources meet WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PSTS which establishes WP:Note.-- Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I added three more reliable source references to this article (provided below), I believe it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore passes WP:N and WP:CORP.
    • "The time is ripe." New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, NH) September 27, 2004, State, Business: C1.
    • "South Hampton vintner wins 7 medals." New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, NH) August 30, 2004, State, Business: C2.
    • Zraly, Kevin (2006). Kevin Zraly's American Wine Guide. New York: Sterling. p. 116. ISBN  1-4027-2585-X. -- Captain-tucker ( talk) 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Sources seem to be local and coverage may not be substantial enough. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 07:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Boston Globe, even the local edition, is a RS, and the Union Leader is about as big of a newspaper as you are going to find in NH. They doen't have any stories in the NY times, but I consider both of those to definitely meet WP:RS and thus establish WP:N. -- Terrillja talk 15:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep--Wines & Vines magazine, the Boston Globe, and Wine East are not local sources. -- Jmundo ( talk) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - sufficient information about a pioneering regional role to merit keeping the article. Tomas e ( talk) 18:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Article has seen significant improvement since initial discussion on the WikiProject Wine talk page and it seems to meet notability guidelines. Camw ( talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, and pass the caberenet sauvignon Checks out in regard to WP:RS and WP:CORP. Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Jewell Towne Vineyards is a well-referenced article, and the refs are reliable. Captain-tucker has added three more reliable refs. Jewell Towne Vineyards is sufficiently notable to justify a WP article. AdjustShift ( talk) 13:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD A7 - subject fails WP:BIO — Travis talk 01:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

RJ Garbowicz

RJ Garbowicz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

No evidence of WP:BIO notability; associated company has also been nominated for deletion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 15:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Extreme Enterprises, Inc.

Extreme Enterprises, Inc. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

No sources indicating notability of this company; does not appear to meet WP:CORP standards. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:NOTE. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Also appears to be a promotional page, which is of course, one of many things Wikipedia is not. ThePointblank ( talk) 00:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Over half of the references point to the company's website, three more are a press release, and others are government public records. Nothing whatsoever to indicate that the company meets Wikipedia standards. — Travis talk 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 ( talk) 02:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete = Not notable, written like an ad, and uses a page on a free press release site as a reference to make statements about a living person (the George Wendt claim, reference #7). Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth ( talk) 04:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Accept-After reviewing the government references, all the names and dates of the company match the state filings. In addition, after reviewing reference (8) which is the IL Birth & Marriage Records, proves relation from the Founder of the company to George Wendt through several last names/ blood lines; Garbowicz, Krieps, Hoth, Wendt. Additional references are a corporate website and a web press release, these are enough to meet WP:COMPANY guidelines listed here:"Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Also, after a Google of the business I was able to find several references including a publishing from "earl stein entertainment" regarding George Wendt using them as his primary agent, which I called to reference and Geoff Cheddy (phone number blanked by admin), George Wendts Manager, said they had agreed to the endorsement.
There is notable information about the company from 2nd and 3rd party sources. The information is limited but that does not make them not applicable for a wiki article. I would recommend some edits on the article though. ( Ynights09|talk) 11:50 (EST), 9 January 2009 — Ynights09 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: I would like to point out to you the very first line of WP:COMPANY, which reads, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Nothing you have pointed out can be considered a reliable, independent secondary source. — Travis talk 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Journal of Thelemic Studies

Journal of Thelemic Studies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Journal published on the internet, and self published on lulu.com, founded only in 2007. No mentions in any WP:RS that I can find. [14] Sticky Parkin 18:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. — Aitias //  discussion 15:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

St. Clements Caves

St. Clements Caves (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

The article fails to establish the notability of the subject, and I was unable to find any reliable sources to establish its notability. Oo7565 ( talk) 18:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 00:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The Kosu

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

NN fighting move, couldn't find any google hits [15], Would normally PROD, but the user has been removing speedy templates, and I don't see this falling easily into any of the speedy criteria. Terrillja talk 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 00:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Foxfeather

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

Contested PROD. The reason given for the proposed deletion was:Probable autobiography with no claim in article of meeting WP:BIO. Gsearch turns up a number of its, but no independent, reliable sources that show notability; zero gnews, gbook, or gscholar hits. Call me Bubba ( talk) 18:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Woollyback

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

Was an expired WP:PROD. Restored per request. — Aitias //  discussion 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  • keep The term Woollyback is well known in the Northwest of England but I've found two or three different for its origins and even some hints that its meaning has changed over time. It deserves to be kept as a Wikipedia article for much the same reason as the American term Yankee has its own article. Several editors have edited the article in the past (I am NOT one of them) and it has stood in Wikipedia for quite some time before its presence was challenged. Deletion proposal and deletion also happened over Christmas/New Year when many editors will be away. --Hauskalainen 18:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)--Hauskalainen 18:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage guide or slang and idiom guide. ThePointblank ( talk) 00:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Soft redirect to wikitionary where the article has been already been transwiked - because it's a dicdef. Or delete. But not enough for an encyclopedia article. Pedro :  Chat  15:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I fail to see why the term Yankee is deserving of an article and Woolyback is not. They both seem to have contentious origins and contentious interpretations. Which is why I'd like to leave Wooleyback up on WP to see if we can get more sourced material. One cannot reflect the contentios nature of the origin and meaning in a mere dictionary entry.--Hauskalainen 15:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 17:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My original rationale stands. This is not an appropriate title for a discussion of the relationship between a city and its environs; and this is not even the meaning of the word. This is a downright false article written based not upon sources but upon ignorance. This is just a general slang name, not a class of people. I encourage all of the editors who worked on this to please read a dictionary, such as Wiktionary. The correct meaning, as can be found in dictionaries, as well as (indeed) the correct spelling, can be found at woolly back, which I fixed up when this was first nominated for deletion. Delete. Uncle G ( talk) 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Uncle G I'd certainly question your condescending attitude towards what the phrase means. Are you a native of Liverpool or the surrounding regions? I come from the city I can attest that it is an extremely commonly used phrase towards those from areas just outside the city. It has a similar meaning to 'plastic scouser' only with a less derogatory background and is commonly used in banter when talking with non Liverpudlians (e.g. No wools allowed). Now personally I'd question whether it deserves it owns article because after all it is simply a slang phrase (and nothing more). However your attitude of 'what I say is the truth and everyone else is stupid or lying' doesn't help. Whether you like it or not the phrase is far more common in this region than anywhere else. -- Daviessimo ( talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • It's not what I say. It's what Eric Partridge, Tom Dalzell, and Terry Victor say, on page 706 of their 2008 dictionary of slang (ISBN 9780415212595). In the 2006 edition (ISBN 9780415291897) on page 1350, Paul Beale contradicts the claim that this is a Liverpudlian slang term, tracing it to a railwayman's nickname instead. I encouraged you to read a dictionary and learn. I already had. Indeed, I explicitly referenced it in my original rationale. Please read a dictionary. You are building upon ignorance, not sources. Uncle G ( talk) 06:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Well given that Eric partrdige died 30 years ago I fail to see how what he says can be seen as definitive truth. The world changes, languages change, people change. How many 30 year old science books are now recognised as wrong? How many 30 year old theories have been disproved? The very fact that you seem so adamant in your belief that this word is a universal slang expression, yet from my experience (any many 1000's of others) the phrase is used in such a localised manner in Liverpool makes me believe that an article is necessary -- Daviessimo ( talk) 18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am not a local and had not heard the term. However surely the origin relates to the IMport of wool, not EXport. England imported Austrialian and other wool in the 19th and early 20th cneturies to feed the Yorkshire textile industry. The content of the article seems to me merely to be a dictionary definition, and thus non-encyclopaedic, which would suggest deletion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Uncle G. Tavix (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep unless it can be merged into another relevant article, perhaps here An index of metals ( talk) 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 15:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Leigh

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. This actor has only appeared in three television productions in minor roles, does not have a large fan base or "cult" following, and has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. A Google search for "'Jonathan Leigh' actor" returns only 891 results, most of which are unrelated to the article's subject; searches using Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar return nothing relevant whatsoever. As such, no reliable sources have been found that can demonstrate notability. Unscented ( talk) 17:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Brian Morrell

Brian Morrell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Appears to be a self-promotion article written by individual named in article.

The page Brian Morrell is and should be a notable page, Morrell still continues to be involved in the Fight game ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrmorrell ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment JulesH is correct that, if it's verified that Mr. Morrell's 1990 bout was sanctioned by a major professional boxing organization, then WP:ATHLETE would apply. I can't tell from the source (boxrec.com) what level of the sport this was at, and even that site lists this as unverified. Balancing against WP:ATHLETE is the problem of conflict of interest WP:COI, and I think that would squarely apply here. Being middle-aged myself, I wish Mr. Morrell all the best of luck in pursuing his dreams. Being mentioned in Wikipedia is near the bottom on a list of honors, however, because it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford ( talk) 02:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply


Verified ???clik/chek any of the other fights, the main event was real as the entire fight card, BoxRec.com is in conjunction with Wikipedia themselves, a sort of brother (sister) site...

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Part of the requirements of WP:ATHLETE just like all of the notability guidelines is that the sources must be verifiable, independent, third party sources. The cited source is not verifiable, so it is not a reliable source. This means it cannot be used as evidence that this person meets the requirements of WP:ATHLETE and deletion is in order. Theseeker4 ( talk) 18:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment What's the problem with the cited source? It appears to have a reputation of being at least mostly accurate (although somewhat incomplete), from a scan of comments about it on google. JulesH ( talk) 21:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete even if fight can be verified it would still fail to meet the threshold of WP:ATHLETE. "Competion of equivalent standing for non-league sports" is a bit higher threshold than a grand total of 1 round, or being a sparring partner. Pretty much anyone can get 1 fight somewhere, he hasn't done anything notable. Horrorshowj ( talk) 03:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Vereniging Basisinkomen

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

Vereniging Basisinkomen is about a not notable Dutch organization, it is from Dutch language sources and unverifiable to English readers. It is a not notable organization, most every thing in the article is about basic income, and that has it's own article all ready. The article was selfpromotion by a community banned editor the organizations officer. Its deletion was blocked by the officer before he was community banned RetroS1mone talk 03:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The references are more than adequate to establish notability. There is no requirement that references be in English, and editors who cannot read Dutch can get a good idea of what the references say by using Google Translate. -- Eastmain ( talk) 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain ( talk) 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't see how those references establish the notability of the organization. Sure, they establish that the issue of a 'basisinkomen' has been on the agenda and in the press, but there is no coverage of the actual organization. Ref. 4, to an article in Trouw, could possibly one such reference, but searching the archives on www.trouw.nl delivers nothing--the organization is only mentioned on their blogs. I looked through ten pages of Google hits, and the only hit (nothing from any of the Dutch papers or magazines, just blogs and press releases) is in a book, where the organization is cited for a definition of 'basisinkomen.' That is not in-depth coverage. In short (and I don't care for any bans), the organization is not notable, and the sources don't establish it as such. Drmies ( talk) 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: Blogs are only unreliable when they're created by hobbyists or people of whom the identity cannot be determined. Since Trouw itself is a notable and reliable source, it should follow that its website and blog are too. Textbook example of a blog that can be considered a reliable source. - Mgm| (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Even if that blog is reliable, it doesn't help much, in my opinion. The problem for me is that none of the newspapers have EVER written about this club, as far as I can tell. That confirms my suspicions--it's a fringe organization with laudable goals, but fringe. Not notable. And while I created Basic income in the Netherlands for this purpose, I don't see much in this article that can be merged. I'll be glad, if "merge" is the outcome, to do so, of course. Drmies ( talk) 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't be opposed to that; if it is condensed to one paragraph, it could fit under the 'advocates' heading, esp. since Saar Boerlage is mentioned in there, and her name comes up in this article too. But esp. some of the references need to be cut, I think, or moved--it would be best, in my opinion, to merge it into an article 'Basic Income in the Netherlands,' since it's a bit too much for 'Basic Income' and not enough to stand on its own. Besides, these references might actually make it fairly easy to hammer out a stub for 'Basic Income in NL.' Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Basic Income in the Netherlands: done. Drmies ( talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - during the first AFD I initially !voted keep, based on the presence of a large number of sources. I then reviewed the sources in greater depth, and found them lacking and changed to !undecided. Mentions were either brief throwaways that couldn't be used to justify any text (i.e. essentially stating that VBI exists but not staying much else beyond address and phone number) or were from themselves extremely dubious notability sources (and here I'm thinking of the nomination of one VBI member for an award by a tiny political party, that no longer exists and never received a parliamentary presence, from another country in a non-Dutch/English language source, for which their work, of which VBI was only part - that may be notability for the person, at a stretch, but not for the organization). After re-visiting all my previous analysis and discussions on the organization and the references/sources, and checking the history to see nothing has changed since my last edit bar the addition of a category, I am quite comfortable with a !vote of delete. Discussion is minimal and insufficient to pass the guidelines of WP:CORP. I am comfortable with what minimal information that exists being merged into the Basic income in the Netherlands page as a section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge According to the previous commenter the sources are lacking in depth to support an article, but he ends by saying that it could still be merged. Since it is still verifiable, a brief mention in the already named article is warranted. To nominator: while English references are preferred, they're not required. Please read the rules, so you can base your nomination of common practice rather than your own opinion. - Mgm| (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Stanky legg

Stanky legg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Updated after revision: Still not a notable dance. -- Terrillja talk 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Brownsnout spookfish ( talk) 16:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: non-notable dance WP:NOTGUIDE. JamesBurns ( talk) 07:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • KeepThis dance is an underground phenomenon, evidenced by the number of people performing it in homemade youtube videos as well as Yung Joc signing the GS Boys to a record deal in response to their "Do Da Stanky Legg" single. This is simply not a "made-up" dance. This is also not an instructional page, but a verbal demonstration of the dance itself. To meet criteria, I have excluded the step-by-step description of the dance itself.

-- Offchance ( talk) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You also attempted, in a second edit, to delete the AFD notice. Please don't do that again. Mayalld ( talk) 16:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

(I apologize for deleting the AFD notice after misinterpreting the wording. It will not happen again. -- Offchance ( talk) 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)) reply

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The Code (2009 film)

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

Contested prod. Article is about a future film. No reliable sources provided, none found. No bias against recreation once more info is known and there is less need for a crystal ball. TN‑ X- Man 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I Googled for the Hindi and Telugu versions of the film's title and came up empty. There are also no relevant hits for Aamir Khan Productions combined with The Code. Therefore, I agree that WP:NFF applies. The article's author, who has had a fair amount of experience with having articles deleted on the grounds of non-notability (or even unverifiability) is surely on notice by now that he needs to provide sources to support his articles. Since he hasn't, and since he is surely the person best positioned to provide them if they exists, I feel confident that deletion is in order for now. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 18:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — PC78 ( talk) 23:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

List of funny animals in the media

AfDs for this article:
List of "funny animals" in media (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

No place in an encylopedia. Brownsnout spookfish ( talk) 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

We're not stupid. The arrangement of the list is stupid, but most of us figured out that this is a vague list of titles of shows that have talking animals, even if we don't normally use the phrase "funny animal" to describe the concept; it's kind of like calling the comics section of a newspaper the funny pages, something done by people who wear rubbers when it rains. The article is uninformative and useless, however. As the AOL Time Warner rabbit said, it took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. Mandsford ( talk) 23:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Capsule rmx

Capsule rmx (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
That is a mere statement. Please expand on your reasoning. - Mgm| (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets basic notability requirements; notable in films documented at IMDB, even if they are not in English seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Yūko Itō

Yūko Itō (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I think this person is some kind of actress; the page resembles a long line of credits in bulleted form, but the whole thing is a horrible mess, really quite spectacular. The whole "article" was added in a single edit back in July and has gone virtually without improvement since then despite desperately needing it. In my view, it's gibberish without a hint of context (and of COURSE there are no references) and I can't see how there's any value to keeping it around with the expectation that maybe, someday, someone might want to spend several hours or days cleaning this thing up into something usable. But the user who removed my speedy thinks it's fine as it is, so here we are. Propaniac ( talk) 13:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - of course, I never said it was fine as is. I rejected a "gibberish" tag because it's nothing of the sort. It's perfectly obvious that it's a biography of an actress listing her work written by someone with moderate English or low wiki-markup skills. Declining a flatly inappropriate speedy deletion request and saying something is "fine as is" are different. Wily D 14:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I assumed you would have added some sort of cleanup tag if you thought it should be kept but was in need of improvement. Propaniac ( talk) 15:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • That is a strange assumption. In any event, speedy deletion is really only for cases where ~100% of commenters at AFD would say "delete", with the first three all "keep", it seems pretty clear declining the request for speedy deletion was the correct choice. Wily D 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
        • I know not everyone shares my view that worthless articles should be deleted (and nobody below seems to think the existing article isn't worthless), but it seems bizarre to "save" an inadequate article without making the slightest motion towards or endorsement of future improvement, if you agree that it's inadequate. But clearly our perspectives will not be resolved and I apologize for my misunderstanding of your edit summary. Propaniac ( talk) 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
          • This isn't about whether the article should be deleted or not, it is about whether an article should be speedily deleted or not. I've not advocated either way here on the former, only the latter. If you hadn't slagged me in your nomination here, I probably would've said nothing - certainly there's nothing wrong with taking a lousy article to AfD, whether it's kept (as it seems this will be) or deleted. Speedy deletion is only supposed to be used when an article has no chance of survival. You might consider {{prod}} for articles that you think ought to be deleted but which don't meet any speedy deletion criterion. It's not about an inclusionist or deletionist bend at all (as a matter of course, I do PROD articles with invalid speedy tags when I decline speedies from time to time). Wily D 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, weakly. Has an IMDB entry that lists her as an actor in a fair number of mainstream productions, including some that even I've heard of, like Eko Eko Azarak. Probably most of the sources will be in Japanese, but it seems likely that her career can be adequately documented. Move to Yuko Ito if kept; we don't need untypeable diacriticals in the English Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, I think Yuko Ito should be made into a redirect to this page. Diacritics(sp?) have become common in foreign titles and a redirect can point anyone who can't type them to the proper article. - Mgm| (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - per IMDB link and apparently has been in a notable film, Cherry Girl. Massive cleanup needed. Perhaps remove list and just change into a simple stub "Yuko Ito is a Japanese actress." Then list filmography based on IMDB. Good candidate for expert and/or expand tag. -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable, if even if mostly foreign. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Eh? She's not foreign; she's in the country where I happen to find myself. But even if she were in some exotic, far-away country (such as the Youess) I wouldn't hold that against her. (But I suspect a well-intentioned and sensible keep vote marred by typo.) -- Hoary ( talk) 03:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral: 1) The credits don't give any indication of the importance of the role she had in said productions. 2) Infobox contains trivial details that are prone to change. - Mgm| (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Fg2 ( talk) 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Needs massive cleanup, natch, and while many of her credits are clearly minor some can be seen (by clicking through to articles) to be important, thus making her pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Keep for cleanup, including translation into standard English. No comment on the page name, as the consensus about macrons in romanji article names seems to be in flux. — Quasirandom ( talk) 15:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as an egregious waste of time without prejudicing the fate of a future article. She's a tarento who's happened to have had her Japanese-language WP article (or similar) put through poor machine translation. This might have been well intended by the Babelfish (?)-submitter but in effect it's mighty arrogant: "I put mere seconds into this so that others will have to spend hugely more of their time on it merely in order to make it acceptable (let alone good)". I have no interest in and virtually no knowledge of tarento and so can't estimate how notable Itō is among the millions of these (to me) interchangable people who fill space in (to me) interchangable magazines, (to me) interchangable dorama, etc; she's still being marketed in her mid-thirties, which puts her in the minority, but th' missus hasn't heard of her, so she's not stunningly memorable/notable. I'm a strong believer in the notion that anybody who puts up an article in en:WP has the responsibility to ensure that it's at least a decent (if perfunctory) start; this isn't, so unless somebody cares to do a lot to fix it while this AfD is still running, it should go. It should not be salted and a later replacement article should be judged on its merits, probably permitted (without the bother of a second AfD), and even welcomed. If this mess is fixed while this AfD is running, fine: this AfD is on my watchlist and I'm fully prepared to change my vote. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Tigriss

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

(a) Article was created solely as spam and google-gaming - to improve rankings of the titlepage's own URL;
(b) the subject fails the notability guidelines Centrepull ( talk) 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

5 C's of Singapore

AfDs for this article:
5 C's of Singapore (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

The cited sources do not mention the concept which is the notional subject of the article and do not specifically present the conclusions drawn from them; as such it would appear to be a novel synthesis form those sources. Guy ( Help!) 10:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. List cannot be adequately referenced or sourced, and borders on listcruft seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Football (soccer) song

Football (soccer) song (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Contested prod. Original concern was: "This article is completely unsourced and covers a topic that is extremely unlikely to have any third party coverage. The term "football song" is not a term used in common parlance. FA Cup Final song would be more appropriate, with a subsection of that article covering the phenomenon of national teams recording songs for major international tournaments" – Pee Jay 09:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

*Weak keep - Rename to a List article I think there is a good idea here, there should be a list article of songs that were released to album/single, produced songs from world cup theme songs. Any song that had a release. The list should contain song names, release date, by whom and what it was associated with. I am sure citation could be found with that in mind. Govvy ( talk) 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Official songs recorded and released for a football event, or performed by footballers, are not the same as football chants. If these songs have been included in that article, then that article has the wrong name and a factually incorrect lede section, and any information over there that relates to released songs rather than chants should be moved here. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Agreed, Keep per above reasoning. Or a very good merge if someone volunteers. JJJ999 ( talk) 11:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Pooktre

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

    cannot be written from a NPOV view because the primary page author is closely connected to the subject matter; and (by his own admission on the talk page) the method for bending the wood (which is the only real point of interest) is "secret" so cannot be turned into a good article. OTOH, the primary author has shown a respectable amount of Good Faith, as evidenced on the talk page. But it boils down to one thing: without a discussion of the method used for warping the trees, the article can have litte notability Robinh ( talk) 09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Actually I'm not 100% sure that I followed the instructions properly on the AFD Log. Could someone verify that it's right please? Robinh ( talk) 09:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Verifiability is a core principle laid out by the foundation. How do you suggest we can keep this and still meet the rules? WP:IAR is supposed to be applied when following the rules stops us from improving Wikipedia. Adding unverifiable information doesn't improve WP. - Mgm| (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    I originally started this page, so that it could be recorded somewhere in history about the first grown mirror standing on its own roots. It is from this perspective that I have been editing the page.


    :::* 1. Without a discussion of the method used for warping the trees, the article can have little notability

    • 2. Not as streaks of firsts
    • 3. Not so secret, and Complete isolation from the rest of the world
    • 4. Merge useful infos into arborsculpture.

    Here is my rebuttal of above points

    1. To suggest that this page would have little merit without the tree shaping methods is under rating the value of the historical achievements.

    What else is left then? Some guys are shaping trees and roots - the rest is an advertisment but no real content. Many others are also shaping trees. Rror ( talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Which leads us to the second point.

    2.

    • We have the first recorded trees shaped into people trees. Which were displayed at the world Expo 2005. We do have several first either harvested or growing in our garden. Any of the first listed on Pooktre page plus more can be photographed and put up.
    • All of Axel N Erlandson's trees except two (which was a chair and ladder) were abstract shaping rather than representational or functional.
    • Majority of people who attempt to shape trees initially shape chairs or buildings. This certainly leaves a large area of things that are not grown before.
    • This is what I was referring to when I said Pooktre has a large number of firsts.
    Some guys are shaping trees into people trees. Is that WP:NOTABLE? I can't find any reliable independent sources. Rror ( talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    3. Axel N Erlandson never published, or told anyone how to shape his trees. Some people have attempted to back engineer how he did them but have not had the success that Axel N Erlandson did.

    • "Axel N Erlandson considered his methods "trade secrets."" the quote is from Axel N Erlandson page [ [19]
    • "Axel never told anyone much at all about how he accomplished it. He considered that his "trade secret," even refusing to tell my mother or me how it was done as he thought we might somehow give his secret away." Quote from My father "Talked to Trees" by Wilma Erlandson page 4

    So this knowledge was lost.

    • For the first 10 years of our shaping trees we didn't know of anyone else in the world who did it. This was an advantage because we didn't know it could be done, so we didn't try to back engineer someone else's work. We developed our own techniques.

    This is what I was referring to with the line in 'complete isolation from the rest of the world.

    How can I WP:VERIFY that? Stating that your method is different, but you won't tell is not very interesting for an article. Rror ( talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    4.

    • If you google Arborscuplture and then Pooktre, Pooktre actually rates a little bit higher.
    • As there is no consensus that Arborsculpture represents the art-form as a whole. I don't think it's appropriate to merge Pooktre with Arborscuplture. They are two very different techniques with two very different results.

    Blackash ( talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    That doesn't necessarily make something notable. Rror ( talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - I started copy-editing the article following a link to a section (grammar ouchies)... then scrolled up and saw the flag... then read the rest of the article. Not notable. Secret method (the method might have made it worth having even though Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Pure advertisement. sinneed ( talk) 07:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Redirect I've just looked at the arborsculpture article and the salient points of this seem to have been transferred. However, people will probably try to find Pooktre, so I feel a redirect might be in order. Peridon ( talk) 20:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, this is not new in the least, and is pure spam. 66.57.190.166 ( talk) 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Wiivolution

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

    The most reliable source the article cites is a youtube video, Google doesn't give anything better, and this seems like pure crystalballing anyway. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 D.N.Angel characters. MBisanz talk 02:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Krad

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

    Delete. Fails the general notability guideline for fiction, lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources and all that. JBsupreme ( talk) 08:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Merge/redirect to List of D.N.Angel characters. Without any references or indication that this can referenced to actual available non-pirated episodes a lot of the in-universe content is unverifiable (contrary to what some believe, I think a certain level of in-universe content is crucial to describe fictional characters). However, the lead section and the first part of the section after that is likely sourceable and could be placed in the character list. At the very least, the redirect is warranted to point readers to actual coverage of the character if this particular bit of material is deemed deletable. - Mgm| (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Merge to the list like its already slated to be. Didn't we just deal with this with TTN?? Merging has already been discussed and approved and is in progress. This AfD is nothing but a complete waste of time. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 14:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • First, a whack with a trout to the nominator for nominating for deletion an article (one of several) that a consensus agreement on the main article's talk page should be merged, and history logs show that other articles were being so merged. Trampling on other editors' toes = not good faith. Second, reaffirm that consensus to merge to List of D.N.Angel characters -- and let the editors involved do so at their own time, instead a rushed merge by the closing admin. — Quasirandom ( talk) 14:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 06:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Graphical Identification and Authentication

    Graphical Identification and Authentication (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non notable and poorly written, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of DLL articles ( WP:NOT), etc. If a single reference can be added pertaining to some kind of notability then I'll be more than satisfied. Verbal chat 08:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • I think you misunderstood my (probably too short) proposal. The poor quality of the article is not why I thought it should be deleted, but is not a good reason for keeping. The reason for deletion I proposed is notability, and I don't see why a secure logon process is inherently notable. The reference to WP:NOT was to the fact that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information - we don't have articles on all DLLs. Now, if I4m wrong and this DLL is notable then I have no problem with it having an article - but since it apparently is no longer used in Vista and Win7 I think it's unlikely. I could easily be swayed to a keep if any references to notability are presented. Thanks! Verbal chat 16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Not intolerably badly written. This is a description of an optional security feature in Microsoft Windows, apparently. The fact that this software is apparently from Microsoft weighs in its favor, since Microsoft doesn't really need to resort to inserting bogus Wikipedia articles for marketing purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 05:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Pearl necklace (sexuality)

    AfDs for this article:
    Pearl necklace (sexuality) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Delete. Just to make it clear, Wikipedia is not censored and I fully respect that. It is also not a dictionary, and this "article" is just a dictionary definition of a sexual term poorly disguised as an encyclopedia article with a bonus dumping ground for trivia ad nauseum. Hopefully we can finally obtain a consensus this time around and do the right thing. JBsupreme ( talk) 07:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

        • With respect and thanks to MuZemike for striking his comment, allow me please to clarify what I mean by my statement above, since this could be construed that I am threatening deletion on the articles I mentioned. My intention is to point out the fact that by listing Pearl Necklace for an AfD, it could *potentially* open the gate for a lot of other articles which could be seen as dicdefs to hit AfD. I did not intend my statement to threaten removal of any of the mentioned articles, merely to show the side effects of an AfD of this nature. Thanks for allowing me to clear this up. :) Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 08:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Weak keep — the sources display at least a minimal amount of notability; however, it needs more so that it can be better established and avoid further scrutiny AFD-wise. MuZemike ( talk) 08:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, the last AfD was leaning towards merge, but no one could agree what to merge it with. This has seven refs, it does have the potential to become a dumping ground for trivia, but when that happens it is quickly removed, and the article has been stable for months. Looking at the recent edit history and the talk page it seems that there is disagreement over the picture and this AfD has been started as the nuclear option. As is stands it is slightly more than a dicdef. Darrenhusted ( talk) 09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, though the current state of the article is rather poor, it is a noteworthy enough subject to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Wanting to "do the right thing" is not justification enough for the deletion of an article. How many times does this discussion need to be had? In law there's a thing called double jeopardy. -- SeedFeeder ( talk) 09:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 11:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. No evidence of notability as an encyclopedic subject; seems to be basically a dictionary definition and the few references given seem to be examples of usages of the phrase rather than in-depth discussions of the concept itself. Properly belongs on wiktionary, but not here, per WP:DICT. Nsk92 ( talk) 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - And expand, subject is definitely notable and while I think it's more than a simple dictionary definition the article could benefit from some expansion. Raitchison ( talk) 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - There are sufficient references for notability and although the border between dictionary definitions and encyclopedic articles may be fuzzy at times, this one seems to be sufficiently on the encyclopedic side to merit keeping. The argument to delete based on potential trivia magnetism is not policy based and should have absolutely no bearing on the close. Frankly, I think an appropriate amount of popular culture references enhances the value of an article, places the subject in a cultural context, and is a necessary and important service to our readers. I agree that the article does need work, but we fix problems with articles (other than intrinsic non-notability) by improvement, rather than deletion, per WP:BEFORE. — Becksguy ( talk) 15:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep or find somewhere more suitable for the subject to be dealt with. This is a culturally significant if rather small topic. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 21:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Less notable than fellatio, but notable enough for its own article. Its use on Sex and the City made it go into mainstream sex. No seriously, it has. See here "fashion trends, sexual vocabulary and dating rules established on Sex and the City soon found their way into mainstream fashion, sex and dating rituals" and on the page before the author is using as an example a piece of dialogue about pearl necklaces. I'm tempted to add this into the article :D It also appears on university press books, it made its way into a New Zealand University book about prostitutes activites and AIDS prevention [22] (pages 125 & 127) -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - At best its a dicdef, at worst it is a slang definition. There are other websites whose primary purpose is listing slang definitions and anyone interested can look it up there Pearl Necklace on urbandictionary.com Nathan Orth ( talk) 00:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    ** Mammary intercourse has slang definitions included too; tit fuck, titty fuck, French fuck...should these be taken out? Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Struck my comments, realised I was using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again. Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 01:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Keep And improve. Here's 600+ books that may help. It's a notable sex act and the article has been targeted for all manner of censorship. We should treat this encyclopedically. Also, IMHO that added illustration is more harm than help. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Why not just merge it with the previously linked cum shot and facial articles then? All three articles describe the same thing (ejaculation on another person) they just differ by location. Someone wanting to censor this article for the wrong reasons does not make it not a definition so it still needs to be merged or deleted. Nathan Orth ( talk) 03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep- Google book search is evidence of the notability of the subject. Article can be expanded with those solid sources. Wikipedia is not censored. -- Jmundo ( talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Is there a non-slang term for this act? I'd like to say Merge, but Bukkake and Facial (sex act) both seem like porn jargon, which might make them overspecific merge targets. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • COMMENT: "Bukkake", "Facial", and "Titty fuck" are not equivalent to "Pearl necklace". They all are specific sex acts involving ejaculation onto a person, rather than into a person (via oral, anal, or vaginal penetration), but clearly different from each other. And here are some additional reliable sources:
    1. Davis, Peter, ed. (1996). Intimate Details and Vital Statistics: AIDS, Sexuality and the Social Order in New Zealand. Auckland University Press. pp. 125, 127. ISBN  978-1869401399. Retrieved 2009-01-09. From Enric Naval's post above. University press source, need we say any more?
    2. Eric Partridge; Tom Dalzell; Terry Victor, eds. (2005). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Taylor & Francis. p. 1455. ISBN  978-0415259385. Retrieved 2009-01-09. Partridge is a well regarded dictionary. From Benji's list.
    3. Morrissey, Gabrielle (2006). A Year of Spicy Sex. Marlowe & Company. p. 39. ISBN  978-1569242629. Retrieved 2009-01-09. Another from Benji's list.

    The subject is clearly notable. — Becksguy ( talk) 15:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Keep-W're not censored, and the act is certainly a notable one. And a trout to the nom for urging us to "do the right thing". Umbralcorax ( talk) 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep We've been here before; the main change since earlier is that the term appears lot more in themainstream, and even shows up for comparison in Wikipedia in discussing other articles, generally in a context like "of course we have articles, on things like p.n., but [whatever] is purely imaginary. " DGG ( talk) 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 05:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Carol Cox

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

    There's no assertion of notability and while I don't deal with PORNBIO very often, she does not seem to meet the guidelines listed there. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 06:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was keep. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Simon Pulsifer

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

    As Wikipedia's popularity grew, more and more newspapers and other media outlets wanted to write pieces about the site. Using a common tool, the profile piece, they picked a random "high profile" editor on the site and talked not only about Wikipedia but also focused on the editor himself, to give the article a more "personal touch." This is a pretty standard journalism practice.

    Subsequently, editors created an entry on the editor, claiming that he is notable due to his coverage in various newspapers for being a Wikipedia editor. Quite simply, this article does not meet our accepted standards for inclusion. The subject is notable for one item: editing Wikipedia. He wasn't a founder of Wikipedia or a member of the Board or anything like that, he was just a regular editor / admin who was featured in news stories during Wikipedia's growth.

    Similar to the recent David Gerrard article debate, this article doesn't cut the mustard due to its surrounding facts. For background, Gerrard acts as Wikimedia's spokesperson and has frequently been cited in the press in articles about Wikipedia / Wikimedia. Like Pulsifer, that does not mean that Gerrard himself is notable.

    I believe it is time that we delete this article and I hope that the community agrees. After eight years, it's time to start re-examining some of our entries to determine whether they truly meet our inclusion guidelines and whether we want to be creating a free online encyclopedia that contain entries like this. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Weak keep Unlike Gerard, Pulsifer is the subject of the sources. It may be a journalistic touch, but it passes the GNG nonetheless. Whether it passes BLP1E... I think it may, just. Sceptre ( talk) 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep He's notable as an early public face for Wikipedia, and as Sceptre points out, he actually was the primary subject of several news articles. In addition, the article was unanimously kept in late November. Zagalejo ^^^ 06:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per the nominator, there is no lasting encyclopedic notability to be seen here. JBsupreme ( talk) 07:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Again, like last time, no new reason has been presented for why this person is not notable. Given the coverage given to this person, he passes WP:N and WP:BIO. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Pulsifer is the subject of multiple publications which makes him notable through WP:GNG. The reason he's known for one thing only seems to imply the nominator wants to invoke WP:ONEEVENT, but that is supposed to be applied for single events, not long term stuff. (If someone is known for his role in one film, you wouldn't invoke that rule either), it was specifically designed for victims of crimes, trivial coverage and copied coverage between publications. - Mgm| (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep- Looking at the name, I knew it looked familiar, then checking through the past afd's i realized i'd voted keep in the previous one, which was little over a month ago. (That's not my argument for keep btw, the following is.) Fact is, notability is clearly established by the references in the article. There really isn't much else that needs be said. Umbralcorax ( talk) 15:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - ultimately he is NOT the subject of many published sources, wikipedia is. He's just the media's chosen case study. Perhaps merge the article into soem article on wikipedia and the media. The bottom line is that he's not famous, and whatever he goes on to do next is not encyclopedic by virtue of it being him. Thus he should not have an article. He's less that BLP1E - he's "BLP1Case study"-- Scott Mac (Doc) 19:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete – Pulsifier isn't notable for events outside of Wikipedia, and anything covered in the article refers to the exclusivity of the user as a "high-profile editor", which at the time must've been rare for such reporting. Additionally, as Scott correctly states above, it appears that the editor is only referred to as notable in the context of him being an administrator early on in Wikipedia; not forgetting that BLP1E hasn't been fulfilled in this instance – "the fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry". Caulde 19:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: this is slightly ridiculous. This is a "human interest story" and despite the usual mantra that "notability is not temporary", yes it bloody is. The article is totally unencyclopedic as it stands. That SimonP was at one time in Time might be a fact worth recording in an article on wikipedia and wikipedians in general, however it does not mean the subject should have a biography. Will those arguing to keep this please read the damn thing, and consider a) chances are that Simon will never again feature in the media - there's no reason to believe there will be any continuing interest in him. So, if articles are not temporary, you will have a bio that will be unchanged in 40 years. "His mother, Diana Pepall, works at the Ottawa Public Library, acting as manager of collection development services. His younger brother, Andrew, was a member of the Ottawa area band, Place, before leaving for the Toronto scene." Even today, we've no way of verifying whether that continues to be true (unless we do OR and trudge through staff directories), and it is not encyclopedic anyway. Since passing media interest is our only source, the "biography" will never be completed or updated. The fact is that single incidents or news cycles where they give no lasting fame to the person should NOT merit articles (hence BLP1E) NOT simply because the subject isn't notable but because the article cannot ever be a biography - there are no sources to complete it or update it. His appearance in Time may be notable - so record that by merging to "Wikipedia in the Media" or somesuch.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 14:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I said "the chances are". The point stands, due to the lack of continuing sources, some of the information currently in the article may well be wrong already, and we have no way of checking or maintaining the article.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • We can always date the problematic statements. (E.g., As of 2006, Pulsifer's mother...) Or just remove anything that seems like it might be out of date. I think most of the article can stay as it is, though. Pulsifer was in Time - that's always going to be true. He was born in Canada - that's always going to be true, too. Zagalejo ^^^ 18:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep There is more than enough significant coverage over several years to establish notability. The coverage goes into the details on the person not just the event (his editing on wikipedia) giving enough information for a biography to be valid and is also spread over several years so personally cannot see this coming under WP:BLP1E. I strongly agree as per our guidelines that notability is permament, people should be able to go back and research this sort of thing. I also do not think that there would even be a debate over the inclusion of this article if it was not for the fact that it is related to wikipedia - just like we should avoid self referencing, we should also avoid deleting articles that we would otherwise keep just because they are related to wikipedia. Davewild ( talk) 20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Sufficient coverage established notability. A very small percentage of Wikipedians (not me) are notable for their contributions at this notable website, just like a very small percentage of YouTube producers should have articles. Royal broil 00:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep...er.....he was mentioned in TIME? Sounds significant to me. K50 Dude ROCKS! 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. While Simon's fame may have been fleeting, the very fact that the media chose to make him a celebrity is very notable. I honestly don't believe from now until the end of time there will be any Wikipedia volunteers that will achieve celebrity in the English-speaking world, solely for their editing. Ryan Jordan and Mr. Puslifer are the only ones who will ever achieve this. -- Zanimum ( talk) 15:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Ryan Jordan isn't notable for his editing of Wikipedia, and you can't help but notice that his association with a notable EVENT is covered in an event-type of article. This biography is not notable either, and should receive passing mention in a another Wikipedia article at best. JBsupreme ( talk) 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    GokulNath Babu Manoharan

    GokulNath Babu Manoharan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Possible Autobiographical article of a non-notable person -- Tinu Cherian - 05:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Sean MacLeod

    Sean MacLeod (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Likely hoax. rootology ( C)( T) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright status of these stubs is dubious. Rücker and Artel don't actually assert any notability, making them eligible for CSD A7 also.  Sandstein  12:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Karl Gustaf Hjalmar Armfeldt

    Karl Gustaf Hjalmar Armfeldt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Housekeeping nomination of Faberge "workmasters" per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Victor Aarne. All of these articles were created by the same user, Bramo ( talk · contribs), who apparently created a bunch of copyvio articles. I don't have any proof that these articles are copyvios so I didn't CSD them, but you can read the previous AfD for more information regarding this. Besides being potential copyvios, delete per WP:N as they are not notable. Tavix (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Henrik Wigström (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Julius Rappoport (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Avenir Ivanovitch Sumin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Rückert, Feodor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    1st Silver- Artel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tavix (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Note. Four articles have been speedily deleted because of incontrovertible evidence of copyvios. The deletion of the remaining articles remains under discussion.

    • I found this in a search for Rappaport, but that may well been taken from the WP article. In that previous discussion, MuzeMike seemed very confident on the copyvio issue--perhaps MuzeMike can weigh in here and explain how he was "assured." I did find a lot of mentions of Julius Rappoport in a Google Book search, though they all seem to be very brief. Mind you, I'm not arguing against you, Tavix, I'm just wondering how deeply we should look into each individual article; in other words, I would like to know how strongly you feel (if you don't have direct evidence) that these are copyvios. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • First off, thanks for singling me out, especially after both DGG and MacGyverMagic both agreed that it was a copyvio ;). (Note that I inadvertently left out the word "not" in my statement in that AFD; I meant to say that the "original content is not GFDL-compatible). If you're questioning my judgment that the article was a copyvio, I remember that the content I saw in the article was very similar to the content in that website to the point that it I thought (as well as a couple of others) that is was a copyvio, hence my rationale for G12. MuZemike ( talk) 08:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Whoa, good faith, my friend! I did not doubt your statement at all and only picked up on yours because...well, actually, I don't recall. :) I have faith in your judgment (and MGM's, below), and only wondered what it was based on so I could have a better-informed opinion on the rest of the articles. Your and DGG's commments (below) confirm my suspicions. I do have the same sort of reservations that Deor marks also, and was unwilling to speak out on a mass nomination; still, DGG's suggested solution appeals to me. Drmies ( talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • (ec) Comment. Despite the outcome of the AfD cited by the nominator, and the apparent vagaries of the articles' creator, I am uncomfortable with recommending the deletion of articles that seem, at least in basic identifications, to be supported by apparently reliable sources. I'm welcome to persuasion in either direction, but I see no reason to advocate a blanket delete at this time. Deor ( talk) 04:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I agreed with the CSD of the cited article because of the creation date of the article in relation to the supposed source. Often it's not clear which came first. In this case it was crystal clear. - Mgm| (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete several (no opinion on the others). The same blog that demonstrated the prior publication in other sources for Johan Victor Aarne has entries for a number of these individuals:
    The the odd one out is Henrik Wigström. To me this all strongly indicates that there is another source from wich both the WP articles and the blog were copied. Bongo matic 09:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • In case it's not obvious, delete Henrik Wigström. The circumstantial evidence that this (despite being created prior to the blog entries) is copied from (as-yet unidentified) common sources is overwhelming.
    It is too bad that the person who copied these items into the blog and into Wikipedia doesn't identify the source. While each individual is probably not notable, the Fabergé workmaster article could be expanded including some of these colorful details. Bongo matic 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep all unless specific copyright violations are indicated for specific articles. The cited AFD resulted in a speedy delete, not because there was consensus that the individual was NN but because the article was a copyright violation. Theseeker4 ( talk) 14:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    As previously stated, there is specific evidence of blatant copyright violation for three of the articles:
    and an overwhelmingly strong inference for a fourth, Julius Rappoport.
    Bongo matic 14:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete though for technical reasons. I think it's very likely that the same person entered it here who wrote the web page--I can't really imagine someone else just happening to come across them at the time. At present, the earlier publication gives it copyright, status. He could assert that he owns the copyright and give them to us also under GFDL, & it would be legit--if we could reach him. He has however been notified of the deletions. I a little bothered by these, because he was editing last December 15--see his user contributions--I think he will come back, and then the response must be to assert copyright to OTRS or by placing a GFDL notice on the blog, and restore the articles. DGG ( talk) 15:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I have just speedy deleted the three which were unquestionably copyvios however I am leaving this AfD open to decide the fate of the less cut and dried cases. For what it is worth my !vote is to delete as although it has not (yet) been proven the probability that the rest are copyvios is very high. Nancy talk 19:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator. On its own merits, this discussion is no consensus leaning towards a keep, and appears to be header further in that direction. lifebaka ++ 03:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Nordine_Zouareg

    Nordine_Zouareg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) –

    I wasn't completely sure about this one, but it looks like the vanity/publicity page for a NN bodybuilder/coach. The biggest problem is in the sourcing-- claims are made that this guy won Mr. France, Mr. Universe, etc., but these all link back to a web site that happens to contain some rankings-- and only one is even vaguely close to the claim (the "Mr. Universe" claim does connect to a winning rank in the 1986 W.A.B.B.A. World Championship). It would be an obvious delete, except I was wondering about the importance of a positive review of his book in Publisher's Weekly. Jlg4104 ( talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Delete. I cannot find any confirmation that he won those titles--at least none in sources that I trust. If someone knows this subject matter better I would gladly be shown the evidence. That Musclememory site, that's not so authoritative for me. As for the review, to pass muster on the book would require a bit more than a Publisher's Weekly review: do publishers pay for these positive reviews? Drmies ( talk) 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I spent a bunch of time cleaning up and trying to rescue this article back in the middle of last year. At the time I started it was a complete pov vanity piece. By the time I hacked out everything inappropriate, the remainder was contradictory hence my comments on the talk page. It was me that tagged it for the issues that have not since been resolved. There is too much conflicting info without accurate sourcing for it to exist as a WP:BLP. On a side note, where is the original AfD discussion if this is the 2nd nom? I can't locate it. Mfield ( talk) 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Nominator comment re "2nd" nomination." Hmm, I think I did everything right, and at some point I put "afdx" in a template and do not recall explicitly trying to make it a second nom. So I guess I thought the 2nd nom designation was automated. As you may guess, this is somewhat new to me. I removed the 2nd nom box, so at least it no longer "looks" like a 2nd. I suspect the appearance of two more prior AfDs can bias results. A more experienced person could help, maybe? It sure deserves at least a first nomination, at least! Thanks. Jlg4104 ( talk) 13:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep--His book "Mind over body" has been reviewed by Monster and Critics, Entrepreneur.com and Publisher Weekly. -- Jmundo ( talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Per Jmundo's input. And to answer Drmies' question: no, publishers don't pay to be in Publishers Weekly -- that's actually a prestigious trade magazine for the U.S. book industry. Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Publishers Weekly (note lack of punctuation) is certainly a prestigious trade magazine, but at 7,000 reviews a year, being reviewed there is hardly a guarantee of notability. Bongo matic 09:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    I would respectfully disagree on that. Ecoleetage ( talk) 14:13, 13 January 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) 00:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Weak Delete Inadequate notability as an author--a short review in PW of one book is not sufficient for notability and the other claimed reviews are not significant or reliable.. Notability would have to be as a bodybuilder, if that is actually considered a sport. I think there is no particular standard for who counts as a professional, so i would want to see evidence that the competitions he won are considered notable. DGG ( talk) 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Entrepreneur.com is the online site for Entrepreneur Magazine, which is a rather prominent U.S. business magazine. Monsters and Critics is a highly regarded U.S. popular culture site. Bodybuilding is considered a sport and it has very distinctive requirements regarding who can advance to the professional rankings. And getting a book reviewed in Publishers Weekly is no mean feat! Ecoleetage ( talk) 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    OK, just what prize did he win exactly? I do not see him listed for Universe Championships, which seems to be the main one, or for [[World Amateur Bodybuilding Championships], nor do I find him on their web pages. I remain skeptical of how well this sport is organized. I ask for considerably more than these reviews for notability for the author of a single book. I see it is listed in worldCat as present in 258 libraries, but again, its only a single book. There are some claimed professions where I am very skeptical about notability, and "life coach" is one of them. for notabiity in that profession, I think it wise to require multiple mainstream sources. DGG ( talk) 08:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    My response above has been challenged a number of times on my talk page, but examining the further discussion, I continue to see no evidence that I consider reliable for the prizes. But I'm not exactly an expert in this subject. I do however know that one can claim whatever one cares to on a book jacket, and uncritical media sources copy it. Even news sources if based entirely on such material or press releases should be discounted. The prior bios of authors of books is not a field in which I consider most newspapers at all reliable. DGG ( talk) 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    CommentHe won the 1986 World Championships for the WABBA, among other titles. I assume you are not familiar with bodybuilding (it is a niche sport, admittedly). In that sport, not unlike boxing, has several different leagues. Arnold Schwarzenegger, arguably the most famous bodybuilder, was the champion in the IFBB (where Mr. Zouareg participated towards the end of his sports career). The sport has been around, in its current state, since the end of World War II -- the notion it is not well-organised is not supported in the real world (nearly every country has at least one bodybuilding league -- as an example, check out the article Afghan Muscles to learn about about both the Afghanistan and pan-Asian bodybuilding competitions). And don't rely on Wikipedia for bodybuilding information -- I am part of WikiProject Bodybuilding and it is probably the flabbiest place on the project (the articles need a major overhaul). As for Mr. Zouareg authoring a single book -- yes, and it was published and distributed by a major publishing company. "Life coach" is a euphemism for personal trainer -- nothing unusual about that (it helps sell books, too). Ecoleetage ( talk) 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    When there are 172,000 books published in the US alone a year, being one of the 7,000 is pretty prestigious. travb ( talk) 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Hey, Travb, please...Bongomatic rocks in my book. Just because we have a difference of opinion here doesn't mean his views don't carry value. Ecoleetage ( talk) 18:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    I refactored the comments out. travb ( talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    I don't think the book refs are in as much dispute as the complete lack of third party, non self published refs about his body building career. If he won all these titles, particularly Mr Universe in 1986 as claimed in the article, why is he not listedin World_Amateur_Bodybuilding_Championships or the ref that supports that article. I am not saying for one moment that he did not win the title of Mr Universe somewhere, its just odd that there are no refs to support it, nor have there been since this article was flagged ages ago and this really needs clarifying as this is a WP:BLP. Mfield ( talk) 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Answer As stated earlier -- he won a WABBA title. The article in question is about the IFBB competition. That's a different bodybuilding league. Ecoleetage ( talk)
    Well, Googling WABBA Mr Universe gets zero results, except for to mention that the IFBB was renamed to WABBA, something that appears to have happened in 1976, well before he supposedly won so he should be in that one. All other Mr Universe results seem to come up as NABBA, that would be Universe_Championships which he also isn't listed in. Why does [29] this search produce not one single listing from an official site of any sort? Mfield ( talk) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Try putting quotation marks around Mr. Z's name when you do a Google search, like this: [30]. Ecoleetage ( talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Did you see the four citations? Three books and a magazine article?
    WP:INTROTODELETE states that "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." We are now talking about some content issues, which can be resolved with cleaning up the article. I suggest the nominator close the AfD.
    travb ( talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Those are hardly books on bodybuilding! (To put it another way, I have little faith in them.) Ecoleetage's Google for the WABBA title gives references that I don't put much stock in, and despite travb's derogatory comment on Bongomatic's remark, I'm personally with Bongo on this one. A short paragraph in a trade journal doesn't cut it for me. Call me a self-appointed deletionist if you will, but if one wants to keep everything, referenced or not, it's almost disingenuous to look for references. I'll shed no tears if this article is kept, and MQS (always good at finding a reference for an obscure celebrity! good work!) may tip the scale for some of you--that's fine. Drmies ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    They are nevertheless published books that verify that claim and that are also found on amazon.com. If something is covered in multiple published books, it is worthy of inclusion in some manner or other. Do magazines like Flex or Muscle & Fitness have online archives, because if they do, that's where we should also look. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 19:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The only title that third party refs support is 1986 WABBA "Overall Winner". The "Mr Universe" (and "Mr. France, Mr. Europe, Mr. World") claim is entirely supported by his own books and website or sites affiliated to him. That's the odd part. These would seem to be big titles that would merit some kind of mention by someone else. Mfield ( talk) 19:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    These three books call him a a Two-Time Mr. Universe winner. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    And that is precisely one of my problems with them. First, I simply don't put that much stock in that type of publication (which aren't known, let's face it, for their body-building expertise) to do that kind of verification. Note also that those books have him as "a two-time Mr. Universe bodybuilding champion"--that's not what the WP article claims, or even the MuscleMemory site. Then, the author of the first title Dr. Dharma Singh Khalsa states Zouareg is his "own personal trainer," and Khalsa is also the author of the second, where he says Zouareg is his "good friend." The third book has the exact same phrase, "my good friend and two-time Mr. Universe winner"--so really, I don't put that much stock in any of these books in that regard, given what looks like collusion. Drmies ( talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Exacty - only the NABBA competition claims the title Mr Universe, and he never competed in that. It is very odd that the only sources that use the term are his own book, or reviews of his own book or are written by his "close friends". If that term was ever used by the WABBA, there would be a mention of it somewhere else. Mfield ( talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The fact still remains that the subject of this article is covered in multiple published books. Whether these books are ideal or not doesn't chance the fact that multiple books and as indicated elsewhere other publications have covered this man in some manner or other. References in multiple non-self-published books meets our notability criteria. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    One thing I found which cannot be included in the article, is a soloflex blog on the official Soloflex webpage, which also mentions his Mr. Universe title. travb ( talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. I just found a nice article about him in the Tucson Weekly and added its sourcing to the article. The article itself is still a little spammy, but that's a matter for WP:CLEANUP and not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Note to closing administrator Many new sources have just been added to the article, resolving many of the issues the nominator originally brought up. travb ( talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. This now looks like quite a good article. Johnfos ( talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per travb - article is now sourced and reads well. If I wasn't on a wikibreak I'd probably have closed this accordingly myself Glen 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - I don't buy the notability argument yet. The "source" on Google books is really an author saying that Zouareg is a two-time Mr. Universe. But there's no independent evidence that Zouareg ever was. It could quite easily be a ruse, which to me seems more consistent with the self-promotional nature of the piece (which included a list of dubious links). I don't believe that every "source" is of equal value, and in this case, I still don't see notability. As the nominator, I have been asked (or at least I think it was suggested to me) to withdraw the nomination, as if the discusson has achieved consensus around "keep." Well, I don't see it. And, if an admin believes I'm not right, I'm willing to be corrected-- but I will leave it to a closing admin to do the close. Jlg4104 ( talk) 00:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • He even made the cover of a magazine. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply
        • I guess I'm just following the notability guidelines more strictly than the keepers. Jlg4104 ( talk) 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply
          • Which he meets: of the millions? of body-builders a fraction appear on the cover of magazines, plus his writings are reviewed in multiple publications, and cited in a couple of other books. We don't need more than that to justify inclusion on a paperless encyclopedia. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply
            • Sure, if you're an inclusionist. I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist. I came across the page and checked into the references. I found what was there to be wanting, that is, so I did some further research and came up with very little to justify notability. People here have worked diligantly, I readily admit, to improve the sourcing, but I still have doubts. I am becoming convinced that this is more a philosophical debate than an AfD discussion. In any event I may withdraw the nomination shortly so as not to belabor the issue. Jlg4104 ( talk) 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I am on the phone with Nordine Zouareg, we are trying to find proof of him being Mr. Universe. Zouareg was on the cover of a magazine. In French is says Chapion Du Mone (spelling), champion of the world. [31] [32] He also won Mr. Universe in Guadalupe in 1988. Another magazine with him on the cover. [33] [34] He brought up a good point, this was 20 years ago, so it is hard to find coverage. travb ( talk) 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • NOMINATION WITHDRAWN - ok, here's what I wrote to travb, with whom I've been having a useful discussion: "I think inclusionism has its merits. I certainly do not hang out in AfD so I can tear things down. To me, AfD represents the spirit of discussion and negotiation that goes into the creation of a high-quality articles. Plus, I enjoy doing the research that can result in a "keep" whenever possible. Moreover, I have done my best-- even though I am new-- to RTFM and continue to do so. So I hope you understand that my M.O. is to help make this wonderful thing called Wikipedia even better. This whole bodybuilder case strikes me as a really important kind of "test case" for the development of WP's whole raison d'etre in light of its users. That's partly why I was primed to respond negatively to any call to close it-- the discussion itself helps to clarify not only the case at hand, but also related concepts such as verifiability and notability." That said, I am worried that what's happened here is that an inclusionist wind blew through the debate and skewed the outcome a bit. But since I cannot be 100% objective at this point, and since at least some progress has been made on the notability and verifiability fronts, I am respectfully, and in good faith, withdrawing the nomination. Jlg4104 ( talk) 01:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply


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

    The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    O. P. Schnabel Park

    O. P. Schnabel Park (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Article does not assert notability and does not cite any sources. Unless there are separate criteria for city-run parks that I don't know about, I don't think this belongs here. Firestorm ( talk) 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm ( talk) 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Delete. It appears to fail WP:NOTE. The article fails to stress why the park is notable in the first place (is it a major landmark? Did something historic happen here?). From Googling, it also appears that the park is not exactly that notable except for the fact it has oak trees... ThePointblank ( talk) 04:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. While I agree that nothing notable is mentioned yet, I feel as if it should be marked as a stub. Those 202 acres were named after 'O. P. Schnabel' for some reason - it's just not written down. I've searched online and found this place to be real, and references do exist which discuss history. Tevonic ( talk) 06:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Chances are that it was named after that person because, like most namings of buildings or parks, etc, he donated a significant amount of money to its creation, or donated the land. That doesn't make any claim of being notable - thousands of buildings and parks have been named after the people who paid for them. Firestorm ( talk) 19:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. I agree the notability of the person the park was named after may be questionable, but a ~200 acre area of any city is something notable. Nearby residents will certainly view this page at some time or another. This article could be expanded with coordinates, images, and a more detailed history. That being said, my position is fairly neutral. I'll add what I can to it for now. Tevonic ( talk) 23:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 20:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    American Pie: Book of Love

    American Pie: Book of Love (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Contested prod. Despite what the prod rationale said, the following text has been added in the same edit as the deprodding: Casting has not begun, thereby confirming that now is not the right time for an article on this movie. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 03:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    List of InuYasha locations

    List of InuYasha locations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Unnotable list of fictional locations used in the manga and anime series InuYasha, however bulk of contents are very minor locations that are not particularly relevant to the series itself, much less having any real world notability. Their use/appearance in the series, such as it is, is already better covered in the episode and manga chapter summaries, while this list is primarily repeated plot from those, with a ton of added WP:OR and unsourced claims. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:V. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 02:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    None of the contents are major at all. All of the locations are minor, with some being really minor. At best, the Bone Eater's Well is the only one that might be slightly less than minor, but even then it doesn't need more than a one sentence explanation: its a well that acts as a gateway between Kagome and InuYasha's world. The list is unnecessary, unnotable, and should be deleted. Nothing to discuss regarding the content at all, none of of it is appropriate nor important. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nomination. The list seems somewhat crufty and I question the importance of locations as a concept. When/How do we determine when the locations of a fictional work are important and encyclopedic enough to create a list for them, in-article or stand-alone? Do we even have an article or list on Dragon Ball locations which are no more important to the series then they are for Inu Yasha? Can a location list ever be anything more then a regurgitation of plot information? These is the basic issues I have with any location list. -- Farix ( Talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per WP:LC items 2-4 and 8. Stifle ( talk) 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete IIRC there are only like three recurring locations in the whole series, there's no point to this. - Norse Am Legend ( talk) 22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Greenhouse gas. MBisanz talk 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    List of CO2 emitted per million Btu of energy from various fuels

    List of CO2 emitted per million Btu of energy from various fuels (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    User took data from this table and made an article. The title is something that wont be searched for. Mblumber ( talk) 02:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Keep I created this article because I was searching for the information myself and couldn't find it on Wikipedia. I think many other people will find this information very enlightening and useful. This article also provides a good connection between various fuel, co2 emission, and environment related articles. If the title is a problem, then someone can create a new title, but that is not grounds for deletion. Especially since articles can be found through indirect searches too. (for example: simply typing in "co2 btu" in Wikipedia's search bar puts this page right at the top! Yaki-gaijin ( talk) 04:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Not everything belongs on Wikipedia. If you can find it elsewhere, simply including an external link somewhere rather than copying the material would make for a better option. - Mgm| (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Scramble-b!

    Scramble-b! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix ( Talk) 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Comment Per ja.wiki (which article's existence suggests that in the country of origin there's some notability) the series was collected in 4 volumes, and followed by a 3-volume sequel which seems to be the story continued. That's not exactly a flash in the pan. Withholding actual !vote to see if I can't find more information supporting notability. — Quasirandom ( talk) 03:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I wouldn't gauge the notability of any article based on the existence of an article on another language Wikipedia, per WP:OSE and WP:ININ. For one, the English Wikipedia has much higher standards for inclusion then other languages. --- Farix ( Talk) 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps, but if said international entry has solid references (I can't tell because of a lack of Japanese language skills) that would be a good reason to keep it. - Mgm| (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Well, not great referencing. Going by machine translation, the article on the first series has more plot summary than anything, and for the sequel series little more than a stub list of characters. This in addition to basic publication info, that is. — Quasirandom ( talk) 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Further research discovers that in addition to the 3-volume sequel, there's a second 1-volume sequel plus a 1-volume sidestory -- in total nine volumes of monthly serial numbers (in Ciao), which suggests ... something. Have not yet anything that fits the letter of the law, though. — Quasirandom ( talk) 19:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • If there's evidence that demonstrates the letter of the law of notability, I'm not finding it. If I were finding hints aside from what I've already cataloged, I might argue for a keep anyway, but the above on its own isn't enough to make me confident the solid evidence exists. A reluctant delete without prejudice for recreation if reliable sources come to light. — Quasirandom ( talk) 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Inu Yasha. MBisanz talk 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Jewel of Four Souls

    Jewel of Four Souls (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Unnotable fictional jewel from the Inu Yasha manga and anime series. It isn't a character and article is almost entirely WP:OR and plot summary. The jewel has no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources and its relevant role in series already better covered by main article plot summary and individual episode and manga chapters summaries in their respective lists. Tagged for various issues since June 2008 with no major change at all. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 02:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Is it actually even called Jewel of the Four Souls anywhere in the English licensed versions? My recollection may be off, but in the anime dub, it is called the Shikon Jewel or The Sacred Jewel, not the "Jewel of the Four Souls". Ditto the manga. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    To be honest I'm not entirely sure. It was several years ago I watched it, and only for 26episodes. The japanese is actually more familiar to me then the english name, but Viz state "Jewel of Four Souls" on their web site [35] Dandy Sephy ( talk) 04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    FreshMen

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

    No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licensed for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix ( Talk) 02:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Nuiguru Mix

    Nuiguru Mix (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix ( Talk) 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Comment. I note that there's articles on both ja.wiki and zh.wiki, with the series licensed in Taiwain/Hong Kong. I strongly suggest that a search be done in the rest of east Asia before concluding that it has not, in fact, been licensed by another publisher. Frankly, it looks like the sort of series that would be, either in Veitnam or Indonesia. — Quasirandom ( talk) 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I wouldn't gauge the notability of any article based on the existence of an article on another language Wikipedia, per WP:OSE and WP:ININ. For one, the English Wikipedia has much higher standards for inclusion then the other languages. -- Farix ( Talk) 04:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • They don't demonstrate notability, no, but they do suggest notability exists -- especially articles in languages outside the country of origin. Enough of a suggestion, that I hestitate to !vote straight out based on not finding anything in English, until further research has been done. — Quasirandom ( talk) 14:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I have found discussion of what is apparently this series on a Korean chat board, which leads me to conclude that it has been licensed in South Korea. I cannot at the moment prove this with reliable sources, and my linguistic (in)abilities make it unlikely that I will be able to. As this would make this a second licensing outside of Japan: keep and remand to the relevant WikiProject(s) (Manga and Japan) to search for reliable sources to demonstrate notablity; if none are found within, say, six months (period suggested due to language barrier) revisit the issue. — Quasirandom ( talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • First, a manual of style can't set criteria for notability. That is well outside of its scope. Second, that criteria does not have consensus back from other editors. If it did, it would be in WP:BK. -- Farix ( Talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • WikiProject's shouldn't come up with additional notability criteria. Instead, they can only interprate and apply the existing notability guidelines. If they did create additional notability criteria, then we would be in a real huge mess since all that is needed is a small group of editors to come to gather, form a project, and then state anything they create is notable under their "criteria". -- Farix ( Talk) 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Future Lovers (Manga)

    Future Lovers (Manga) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licenced for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix ( Talk) 02:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • That the series was reprinted by a different publisher hints at a certain amount of popularity, which suggests notability, but I'm not finding any other evidence (such as reviews). That there's no ja.wiki article is suggestive that it's not notable. Pending actual evidence that it passes WP:BK, delete. — Quasirandom ( talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    You obviously didn't do much research. This yaoi manga is available in every major book store in English (and Japanese, of course). Just do a quick Amazon search and you'll find it.-- 24.129.100.84 ( talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Amazon does not constitute every major bookstore in English, and that does not make it notable. See WP:BK. And also WP:CIVIL. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 14:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Interestingly, it's not on the shelves of the Barnes & Noble around the corner from me -- I just checked. Either they're not major or you've got some facts wrong. In any case, being available does not mean notable or every book published would pass WP:BK (and they don't). Please show some evidence for your initial assertion that meets the relevant notability guideline. — Quasirandom ( talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a3, no meaningful, substantive content. NawlinWiki ( talk) 02:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    ߄

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

    Unremarkable and non-notable unicode character Tagishsimon (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    The Romantic

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

    This movie is wp:nn with no source (beside the movie website) Mblumber ( talk) 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Millionaires (band)

    Millionaires (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC. -- Gmatsuda ( talk) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Dennis Danzik

    Dennis Danzik (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    This article came with an impressive list of external links (see this earlier revision for the whole list). I noticed that one link was dead, and tidied it up. On inspection, all the rest of the external links were variously to dead links, press releases, mere mentions in passing, and database entries, none of which appeared to meet the WP:RS criteria, and I have removed these too. Without these, I can't see that what remains passes the WP:BIO criteria. The Anome ( talk) 06:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • You're confusing verifiability criteria with notability criteria. Notability required multiple non-trivial sources. An article mentioning a subject in passing or in a database can still be reliable even if the coverage isn't indepth. -- Mgm| (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps I should rephrase that. The links removed were either dead, not RS, or did not meet the BIO criteria. The patent listings are clearly reliable primary sources, but do not meet the BIO requirements. Otherwise, we would need to have an article on every person who had ever filed a patent. Similarly, press releases are not sufficient; anyone can have a press release distributed by any of the many release distribution services; they are not, in general, then fact-checked by their republishers. The person in question sounds quite interesting, and I'd happily support keeping the article if third-party sources that meet the WP:BIO criteria were available. Unfortunately, I can't see any evidence that they are. -- The Anome ( talk) 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete — no evidence of notability. Holding a patent does not make a person notable; there is no evidence that any of the patents are notable. The Reuter's EL is a press release, and does not provide evidence that Danzik is notable. — ERcheck ( talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep — Patents, especially the first plastic lumber, and a new renewable liquid fuel source is groundbreaking and important work. Also growing Wiki support. Most link destruction was done by unknowns. This can be repaired. It is also impossible to know if the person saying "Delete" is unbiased and not "put forth" by someone with motive. NPSE links were removed, SPE links were removed. Totally unfair to other researchers looking for basis of information in olefin sciences and original inventions and ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventorssociety ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Growing Wiki support? If these patents are so groundbreaking and important, one would expect them to have been written about--but I can't find anything at all. In fact, the only hit I got through Google news was about the house the guy bought for $6 million. I am not sure exactly what links you're referring to above (or what's unfair about previous edits), and perhaps I am also guilty of what you call "link destruction"--since I removed the links to various databases that list patents, without a single explanation as to what those things are, or, more to the point, how they are important. If you want to save your guy, you need to find sources that pass muster to establish his notability (I let the Reuters-thing stand, even though it's a press release: you need better sources than that). Drmies ( talk) 04:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I hope his inventions are successful and become notable. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: For the reasons above and he also does not seem to pass the Google test. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Elena Usachova

    Elena Usachova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Promotion of a nonnotable dress designer Dzied Bulbash ( talk) 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Channel-stopper. Mgm| (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Channel stopper

    Channel stopper (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Has been shifted to Wiktionary; mere definition, not needed here. Orange Mike | Talk 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Butterfly warrior

    Butterfly warrior (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Butterflies are free to fly, but neologisms should not be encouraged to nest here. Fails WP:NEO. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    CleverTexting

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

    non-notable software Sceptre ( talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 05:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Jewell Towne Vineyards

    Jewell Towne Vineyards (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    This article fails WP:NN and WP:CORP.

    Claims "oldest winery" when it started in 1982. Emphasizes number of medals won, which is meaningless especially when the medals list reveals that they were not for international competitions and predominate in silver and bronze, nothing to brag about, achievable by amateur winemakers. Numerous reliable sources discuss gimmicks and marketing ploys of medal factory competitions.

    In spite of the sources referenced, this is a non-notable winery. Sources such as Boston Globe look respectable at first glance, but are actually local-interest coverage. Other sources are minor local papers.

    Please also review the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Jewell Towne Vineyards before adding your comments. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Comment. At time of time of nomination, the claim is oldest currently active winery, no emphasis of number of medals won or other gimmicky marketing ploys, or otherwise editorializing and first-name cozy language. Sources somewhat exceed smalltown local paper sphere.. It is just about WP:NN and WP:CORP. MURGH disc. 11:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Fly fm - Nottingham Trent University

    Fly fm - Nottingham Trent University (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Campus radio station. Cannot locate evidence of it passing WP:NOTE. Nancy talk 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Comment: I think that all permanent licensed radio stations in the UK are automatically notable but it is not clear that they actually have an FM licence, despite the station name. I can't find a frequency on their website and "fly fm" is not found when I search Ofcom. They seem to be members of the Student Radio Association, and have won awards from them, so maybe there is something there. I would like to give the article the benefit of the doubt, as I used to do student radio myself, but it urgently needs some more references if it is to stand a chance. As it stands, I couldn't honestly put even a very weak keep on it. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: "we broadcast live online from our studios in Byron House on every single day of term. We also broadcast live in Union bars and shops at all three NTU campuses". Doesn't sound like they have a free-radiating broadcast license. JulesH ( talk) 20:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: non-notable campus station. Doesn't appear to broadcast outside of university. JamesBurns ( talk) 01:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability has not been established. Photographing other famous individuals does not assert notability. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Peter Hill (photographer)

    Peter Hill (photographer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    I removed the WP:prod on this because it has been done and contested in the past. However, I can't find any sources to help prove notability so I feel it should be deleted. Raven1977 ( talk) 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Hill seems to be no more than one in tens of thousands of rock photographers. He's young; he may go far. If/when he goes significantly further (solo exhibitions, books noted for the photographer as well as the subject matter, critical commentary), he can get an article; till then, 'fraid not. Delete. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete This article does not independently establish notability. The article merely restates the contents of Hill's website and other self-produced documentation. I agree with Hoary that deletion does not preclude a future article when notability is able to be independently established. TheMindsEye ( talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Not yet there, no prejudice to future re-creation if he becomes notable in the end. -- Crusio ( talk) 09:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Notability is established by the notability of the numerous artists Hill has been sought out by to provide key material - such as covers of top selling albums, music books, top selling music magazines, videos etc. Some references are [37], [38] [39] Citizensmith ( talk) 11:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Sources 1 & 2, while reliable sources, only mention him in passing. Source #3 is a book which he contributed to as a photographer, not about him. I don't doubt he exists, and that he photographs notable bands, but none of these sources, or the ones added to the article, appear to cover him in depth, and don't seem to satisfy the notability guideline. User:Raven1977 Talk to me My edits 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep I don't normally edit Wikipedia but I am an avid reader as well as a huge photography fan so wanted to add my tuppence worth. We study Peter Hill as a photographer on my University course and I don't believe Hill is one among tens of thousands of rock photographers. Just entering 'rock photographer' into google proves that. He's a leading light in the music photography world and notability can be helped proven by some of the biggest bands in the world such as Fall out Boy using him, and only him, to take photos of them for websites such as myspace. [40] ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotphotographer ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — Scotphotographer ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

    "keeeeeep" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.111.104 ( talk) 12:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — 88.106.111.104 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 ( talk) 01:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete This person has photographed artists who are notable, but there is nothing in the references given to show that he is notable himself. Association with the musicians cited does not give notability. A reference needs to more than just mention the photographer - it needs to comment on the photography. Jenafalt ( talk) 10:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment We read above: We study Peter Hill as a photographer on my University course. Splendid! Where's the web page for the university course, or better still the lecturer's Powerpoint/Wimpypoint/Slidy slides or even PDF handout for it? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep despite SPA voting. Photographer of covers etc for multiple notable albums and artists should be notable. Better to have unified article rather than duplicating text in album articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    AER Amplifiers

    AER Amplifiers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    No references, no claim to notability. Mikeblas ( talk) 16:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Aaron Nicholls

    Aaron Nicholls (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Fails WP:BIO - unable to find significant coverage. Also WP:NOT#NEWS. — Snigbrook 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • The first two only contain one line or two that is relevant to this article, which is not enough, and the other two (both are the same url) are on a blog and appear to be about another person with a similar name. This article could be merged if there was an article about the crime he was convicted of (per WP:BLP1E) but there does not appear to be enough coverage in reliable sources. There is no inherent notability for criminals (e.g. Ian Huntley is redirected to Soham murders), so I don't think this meets the relevant guidelines. — Snigbrook 15:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    I think a one sentence merge and redirect (to the appropriate section) might be the way to go. The possible suicide attempt and tape are already mentioned in the Soham murders article so mentioning that Aaron Nicholls was allegedly involved and what he was convicted of doesn't seem like a big deal. As he is somewhat notable for his own horrific crimes and his involvement in this other incident, I think including him in some fashion seems appropriate, but the whole thing is pretty awful, and so distasteful I don't want to have much to do with it. Too upsetting. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Shiraz Ahmed

    Shiraz Ahmed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Journalist with questionable notability. Prod was contested by the creator (almost certainly Shiraz Ahmed himself), on the grounds that his employer is "one of the leading business newspapers of Pakistan," something that should not need to be mentioned. No sources, and googling that name (specifying that I'm looking for someone working at The Financial Daily) returns nothing of substance. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • I can't really get my head around the google new archive results for "Shiraz Ahmed". There appears to be a cricketer with that name and a number of others. Probably just the effect of sticking two reasonably common names together and news searching it. In any case, I find myself agreeing with the nom on this one. Delete unless further notability can be established. If anything, there appear to exist more notable people by that name. Usrnme h8er ( talk) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Aslam Malik

    Aslam Malik (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Unreferenced journalist who appears non-notable. Difficult to check as a (different) notablemore widely referenced person exists with the same name, but no claim in the article leads to a different conclusion. Bongo matic 13:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Probably not really notable (changed nom above). See http://people.forbes.com/profile/aslam-malik/4959.
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As ever, discussion on whether to merge or redirect the article somewhere can be taken up on the article talk page. Stifle ( talk) 11:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Tiles of the Hold

    AfDs for this article:
    Tiles of the Hold (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    List was previously deleted as nonnotable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold in September 2008. As this list had a little more (in-universe) information than the AfDed list, I chose not to speedy it as WP:CSD#G4 and prodded it instead. Prod-tag was removed with some explanation at the article's talkpage ( Talk:Tiles of the Hold), but I am (still) not convinced that his list should be included in wikipedia (nothing significant found on Google Books/Scholar/News), so here we are again. – sgeureka t• c 11:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Keep- This article has been updated, and although, at present, it does not meet notability guidelines there are at least two forthcoming novels that will use this information. Prior to them, two novels have used this information in an introductory note and practical note. Also, a reason for the lack notability in 'Google' hits is because of the complexity of the series and only a few sites have gone and done work on it. Google Scholar rarely has fiction elements on it. Google News would not have anything to do with elements of a book, unless there is a book review in a magazine, which usually is not detailed enough to give away plot. No information is original research based on primary source material. It is directly from the book although formatted for readability and put into context. This information will be useful in the future. There is no reason to delete it. Thank you, Krmarshall ( talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • (Note: Krmarshall is the article re-creator.) Articles that were recently deleted through consensus should not be recreated unless the concerns of the previous AfD no longer apply (which is not the case here), or unless WP:DRV overrules the AfD (also not the case). Original research was not noted as a reason for deletion here. If consensus in this AfD determines that this list should be kept, then that's also fine. – sgeureka t• c 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    *Delete If there are forthcoming novels that will make this notable, then when the novels have been published and there is some comment on them, it should be possible to write an article. DGG ( talk) 06:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I have analyzed this further, below. DGG ( talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The new editor removed the AfD tag [45] and Sgeureka replaced it. I did this the first time my article was put up for deletion too. The new editor had a mere 365 edits before they created the page.
    Since we are questioning good faith now, I think the question is whether this nomination was in good faith. The policy WP:PRESERVE states that "whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information, instead of removing" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state that deletion of an article should be a last resort. In this case, deletion was the first resort. The article should be userfied or kept. travb ( talk) 03:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Delete How can you have a "Keep" argument that says the subject is not notable? No reliable third party sources address the subject. The only source is from the book itself. There is no policy or guideline basis for a keep argument. The good faith of the editor not withstanding. As the source for this is the book itself, this is WP:OR at best. There is no point in userfying this. The quality of the keep arguments here astounds me. Dloh cierekim 03:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Add delete per arguments presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold. As this is a mere recreation of material deleted after that discussion, as there is no improvement and no sourcing, as as there is no basis for keep arguments, Speedy Deletion as recreated material is certainly appropriate. Dloh cierekim 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Note is taken that the creator of the article is a participant in the discussion. Dloh cierekim 03:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • 'Merge as I am about to suggest. I've been asked to reconsider. I think major plot elements in fiction are always notable if the fiction is notable enough. I think these are not major plot elements, but minor ones, just part of the background machinery, and would only be notable if the fiction were exceptionally notable. I see no evidence of anything more. But I do not know the series, so I may well be wrong; I am judging only by the material in the Wikipedia articles, which do not seem of great clarity. If I am wrong, there should be discussions of the books in which these are referred to , and I do not see this. I have my doubts about Deck of the Dragons, but at least this seems to apply to the entire series. This seems to apply to one part of the fictional universe only. Perhaps then they two articles should be merged, unde some such title as Divination in The Malazan Book of the Fallen, with a possible redirect from this title. Otherwise, it seems unduely specialized. As usual, I don;t really think afd is the best place for such discussions. DGG ( talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Weak keep On the one hand it's a bit in universesque, on the other hand it's a worthile listing that's relevant to a successful novel. I lean towards including it somehow in a tightened format or even merged into parent article. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Oh and there is nothing to preserve. Userpages are not preserves for indiscriminate, nn info that dose not met notability. Wikipedia is not a plot summary. Useful is not an notability criterion. cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Still Keep:
    I agree with Inclusionist:
    Since we are questioning good faith now, I think the question is whether this nomination was in good faith. The policy WP:PRESERVE states that "whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information, instead of removing" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state that deletion of an article should be a last resort. In this case, deletion was the first resort. The article should be userfied or kept.
    What harm is there to keeping this article alive. I have added to it, again. And believe there is still more to add. I have a busy life outside of this, so it takes some time to create a full article. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are articles. Krmarshall ( talk) 00:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. WP:SOAP is the first strong argument against this article. The second one is a previous AfD on the topic. And this is enough already. Tone 13:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Criticism of arabism

    Criticism of arabism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Appears to be a list of reasons to dislike arabs, in extended essay format. To me, an unsalvagable collection of opinions. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 01:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    "the city streets"

    AfDs for this article:
    "the city streets" (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    I don't think this meets the music notability guidelines. Neutrality talk 07:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 ( talk) 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Illegal Alien (film)

    Illegal Alien (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Cambridge University European Union Society

    Cambridge University European Union Society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable Neutrality talk 06:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Requested and required by members of various departments within Cambridge University, and necessary to raise awareness of society itself -- RRowbottom ( talk) 06:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING. Neutrality talk 07:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    *Delete per nom. Non-notable.-- Mitigate & Satiate ( talk) 18:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Struck comment by banned user. NawlinWiki ( talk) 23:59, 3 January 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) 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    I would like to know what prompted the AfD? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Note: I added a section to the article with 'Possible References', which gives all the independent sources I could find. Very weak ... Aymatth2 ( talk) 18:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a recreation of previously deleted material ( G4). Similar material has been deleted in the past following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Hyde and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightingale Research Foundation. The current page adds no new evidence of notability nor does it address the deletion rationales from the previous AfD discussions. Further recreations of this article which meet speedy-deletion criteria (see G4) can be tagged as such rather than going to AfD.

    If there is interest in recreating an article on this individual, then the proper process would be to go to deletion review and present evidence that he meets our notability requirements for individuals or academics. The prior discussions linked above have determined that he did not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, so an effective argument at deletion review would probably focus on new or previously unmentioned evidence of notability. MastCell  Talk 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Byron Marshall Hyde

    Byron Marshall Hyde (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    WP:RS, not notable, deleted before RetroS1mone talk 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Widely cited? A paper cited 47 times isn't that remarkable. Papers of truly notable people get cited hundreds of times. - Mgm| (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    I looked into this in 2007; the histologic articles (including the one with 47 citations) appear to be by a different BM Hyde. Espresso Addict ( talk) 13:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Yes i think you are right there is more then one BM Hyde. RetroS1mone talk 13:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Struck in light of comments. Poor judgment on my part. Leave Sleaves 14:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    When a person's opinion is accepted as that of an expert in multiple reliable sources, that does add to notability and indicates that the person is well regarded in the area. Plus that was just my secondary point. My primary support stems from the publications. Leave Sleaves 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for your view LeaveSleaves. I thought " trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability," a report some one will speak at a YMCA is very trivial and the drug company thing was a press release so not reliable. Are there works about this Byron M. Hyde, that is how I see WP:NOTE? Google searches for publications can be mis-leading like when there is more then one BM Hyde and there is. Your list of five books has just three published books, one is a collection of poems so it is not for notability of a doctor, one has a three-page article from him and the third, he is one from three editors and it is self-pub. Your list of publications has also another BM Hyde who published in peer-review literature and also publications by this BM Hyde who did not publish medline peer-review articles. When it is enough for notability, then every that has publications can be on WP, i don't think that is intent? RetroS1mone talk 05:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    0.720

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

    The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Infamous Adventures

    Infamous Adventures (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    The only independent references are from one source; Adventure Gamers site, and appear to be press releases, thus do not satisfy WP:N. Sources posted on the talk page are similarly press releases (and a YouTube clip which doesn't mention this company at all.) During a web search, I did turn up one possible source ( [51]), not sure if this is sufficient on its own. Marasmusine ( talk) 18:56, 3 January 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) 00:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    I'll try that if the concensus is to keep this (verifiable portion of) information. I'm still leaning on this side of delete. Marasmusine ( talk) 13:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Notable Sources:

    http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/19/kings-quest-iii-pimped-out-and-re-released/
    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/news200606kingsquest3
    http://digg.com/gaming_news/King_s_Quest_3_(the_remake)_has_been_released_\
    http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=24729077&union_id=936
    http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/company/index.php?company=80226P
    http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/kingsquestiiitoheirishumanvga/index.html
    http://www.imdb.com/company/co0186724/
    http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/company/80226.html

    If you require more than leave a message underneath.
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMB1988 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    I'm looking through the links now, let's see.
    • Joysiq.com -> Not significant coverage (press release)
    • Eurogamer -> to quote "And yes I did just rip that bit off Wikipedia..."; we can't reference a source that itself references us, or we get a walled garden.
    • Digg.com -> Not significant; merely links to the official website
    • uk.gamespot.com, imdb and gamefaqs -> "official press release", and basically empty directory entries; no significant coverage.
    Thanks for searching for sources, but these aren't usable. Marasmusine ( talk) 14:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Weak keep: Just to clarify, though the Eurogamer source can not be used to cite the content, I believe it still qualifies as a reliable source making note of a subject. Though the rest of sources don't build a strong case. I say weak keep because this is not a work of fiction, but a real-life company. Otherwise, I'd say delete. ( Guyinblack25 talk 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lazulilasher ( talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    The Pen & Quill

    AfDs for this article:
    The Pen & Quill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Completely self-referenced. Not notable. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Comment - The book appears to be written by the same people who write or at least sponsor the newsletter. Only a trivial mention in newspapers, doesn't satisfy WP:N the article has to be about the subject in question. Good finds though! Panyd The muffin is not subtle 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    In my experience newspapers and magazines rarely write much about other newspapers and magazines. So while I agree the coverage isn't very substantial, the coverage does seem to assert that this publication is an authority and well repected in its field. As such it seems reasonable to include it. How many well established decades old publications on autographs are there after all? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Comment - I have historical NYT archives. The publication is only mentioned because they talk to the editor of the magazine. The actual article doesn't talk about the publication at all. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment addendum There are also quite a few stories that mention the parent club: [55] ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Addendum to addendum As noted in this NYT story [56], "The Universal Autograph Collectors Club, the largest nonprofit autograph collectors' association, lists more than 200 registered dealers," the group appears to be quite notable even if their publication isn't. So a merge to a new article about the club would also be a good option. The more I look into it the less I think deletion is a good outcome. But maybe someone has a different take? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 15:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Jsadserver

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

    I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. There was barely any results on two Google searches and no results on two Google News searches and two Google Books searches. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 ( talk) 01:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss World 1973. WP:V is not negotiable - no sources, no article. Especially for WP:BLPs.  Sandstein  17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Sylva Channessian

    Sylva Channessian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Fails WP:N and WP:V. There are no non-trivial, third-party reliable sources from which a full, neutral biography could be written about this individual. I have searched both contemporary and modern sources in English, but have found nothing substantial. I grant that there could be some contemporary/modern sources in Arabic, but the onus of finding sources is on the individual who creates the article/adds the material. In this case, however, I would love to search for sources in Arabic - I can read enough that I could at least tell if there were sources available, even if I couldn't translate them fully. Unfortunately, the problem is that I have no idea how her name was transliterated in the 1970s and, because no sources have been provided for the article, I cannot search for her name in Arabic, highlighting the need for people who provide material to also provide sources rather than sending everyone else out on a hunt. As for WP:V, even if everything in the article is verifiable, there is nothing more than that; in its current form, the information is nothing more than would be present in a list of pageant winners. If this is the only verifiable information, then it does not merit its own article at this point. Cheers, CP 19:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Redirect to Miss World 1973. There's no real information in this article beyond the subject's placement in that pageant. If we can't find any information about the subject in English (the pageant's home language) or French (the second language of Lebanon), it's unlikely that we will be able to find any in Arabic either. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep the standard is verifiable, and until sources in her country for the period are consulted, we cant say otherwise. I would imagine the amount of newspaper publicity would be very large. DGG ( talk) 21:21, 4 January 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) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Makebelieve Records

    Makebelieve Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    I can't fidn any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 ( talk) 19:16, 3 January 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) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Just because the label isn't notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia certainly doesn't mean they don't exist. It simply means they aren't notable. There is nothing in WP:CORP to support the position that a company is notable because they have had a notable band on their roster. -- JD554 ( talk) 10:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    I'm not talking about what WP:CORP says. Bearcat ( talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    It's obvious that JD554 knew that and just brought it up to show that your comments go against the guidelines. Schuym1 ( talk) 03:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Guidelines specifically spell out that they're not inviolable, but are "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Both of which pertain here. Bearcat ( talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    I disagree. Schuym1 ( talk) 12:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Notability is not inherited. A famous person must have had both a mother and father, but that doesn't mean we need articles about those people just because their son/daughter became notable. No, the fact that the band is notable does NOT mean the label producing their music is also notable. Theseeker4 ( talk) 14:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    A person can become notable without their parents being directly involved in their careers. A record label, however, is inseparable from a band's notability, because the record label is the conduit by which the band became notable. It's like saying that a television show can become notable by airing on a non-notable television network: it's objectively impossible, because the television show's notability is wholly dependent on the network that airs it, just as a band's notability is wholly dependent on the record label that distributes its music. It isn't about "inherited" notability; it's about the fact that it's flatly impossible for a record label to be non-notable if its affiliated artists are notable, because the record label is the venue that made the artists' notability possible. Bearcat ( talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    I disagree. It is non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Schuym1 ( talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Also, film companies that produce notable films get deleted in AFD because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. How is that any different? Schuym1 ( talk) 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    And the TV show and notable channel comparison is stupid because all notable channels has significant coverage in reliable sources unlike this record label. Schuym1 ( talk) 05:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Not so; it is possible, and in fact quite common, for a TV channel to have absolutely no significant coverage about it as a topic in its own right, but to get coverage only in the sense of being briefly mentioned in coverage about its individual programs. In fact, more television channels fall into that boat than not. Bearcat ( talk) 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 01:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    InnovativeCommunities.Org Foundation

    InnovativeCommunities.Org Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    No evidence of notability. No news references (Google news admittedly, not Factiva) for the current or former name of the organization. Unable to locate "significant coverage" in the rest of the 'net. Bongo matic 19:17, 3 January 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) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 01:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Morgan delle Piane

    Morgan delle Piane (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Notability as an artist not established, nor is family enough to support significance. Unsourced, no Google hits. Both my initial speedy template and a separate prod tag have been deleted. Time for AFD. JNW ( talk) 19:16, 3 January 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) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G3 by Orangemike. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Slovenia's Next Top Model

    AfDs for this article:
    Slovenia's Next Top Model (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Possible hoax. I can't find any evidence on Google that this show existed. Epbr123 ( talk) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Karen Graham (Dietitian)‎

    Karen Graham (Dietitian)‎ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Being published does not quite mean that that author is neccesarially notable. Pumeleon T 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    It should be noted that there is a redirect to this page at Karen M. Graham. Pumeleon T 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep I agree that just being a published author doesn't grant notability, but three books, the first of which was academically reviewed, Findlay, C. (1996) "K.M. Graham - Food Irradiation: A Canadian Folly" Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9(1): pp. 83-85, does help. When a non-academic gets her book reviewed in an academic journal, that is one sign of notability. Its also intersting that her menu book is routinely carried on Canadian libraries' list of "Health Literacy Resources". It is a weakness that this is currently an orphaned article, which may say more about the Wikipedia than about her. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Insufficient notability. Relatively minor works with minor reviews. Borderline speedy as a promotional article. DGG ( talk) 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Review in academic journals alone has been struck down repeatedly as proof of notability. Trusilver 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 00:01, 7 January 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) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The only significant source in that Google News list was an interview on CBC where she was promoting her own book. DGG ( talk) 05:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    She was giving her opinion as an expert in food irradiation. Can you cite the part where she was promoting the book? -- Jmundo ( talk) 05:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply


    Spirit of America Band

    Spirit of America Band (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable marching band. Prod deletion tag removed by author. Search only turns up ~500 GHits. ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 22:08, 3 January 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) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 01:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Atol (software)

    Atol (software) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 ( talk) 22:27, 3 January 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) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Springfield, Missouri#Education.  Sandstein  17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    The Summit Preparatory School

    The Summit Preparatory School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Recently founded elementary/middle school, without its own grounds. Article has no secondary sources. There is no evidence of noteable alumni. The only points of notability seem to come from the school's own material without objective comment. Porturology ( talk) 22:26, 3 January 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) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    $700 Billion Bailout (book)

    $700 Billion Bailout (book) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Nothing at all to indicate that this book is particularly notable, much less that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (books). bd2412 T 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion requested by creator. El on ka 04:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Social class and health in the US

    Social class and health in the US (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    This is an essay not an encyclopedia article Mblumber ( talk) 23:38, 3 January 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) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Wait, the creator of the article is asking for it to be deleted? rly? -- Mblumber ( talk) 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    It was overly specific for Social class, so I dumped it to its own article, because I was cleaning up Social class. I didn't bother to assess the section for encyclopedic relevance. I'm not the author of the text in any way shape or form. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Ryan Stanchek

    Ryan Stanchek (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Timneu22 ( talk) 12:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The article says he was "second-team All-American" his senior year. Doesn't seem to meet the guidelines. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    I'm not sure how being a second-team All-American isn't notable. If the rules say so, then they should be altered. John ( talk) 23:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    If being second-team all-american was notable I suppose there would be substantial independent coverage of this athlete. I do think there's a case to be made that starting college athletes in major sports are notable, but this isn't the place for that discussion. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Comment - Now that would be speculation, see WP:CRYSTALBALL Scapler ( talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Please show me where I inserted my analysis of his draft prospect into an article. That rule says nothing about the basis on which an editor may support or oppose the deletion of an article. In fact, using your own good judgment about the future is probably an all around good idea in this case. Using WP:CRYSTALBALL to demand the procedural deletion of an article that we know we are going to create in short order is silly and only creating extra work. This person is obviously notable and it's hardly worth arguing. -- B ( talk) 22:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Comment - An All-American, an all-conference selection, a multiple-year starter on a nationally ranked offensive line, one of the greatest lineman in school history, and an NFL Draft prospect. Not notable? This is pathetic. John ( talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounted Iamawesome800's and MISTER ALCOHOL's comments for making no pertinent arguments.  Sandstein  17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Jock Sanders

    Jock Sanders (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Jock Sanders may end up being notable, but right now he is not. Timneu22 ( talk) 12:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Let's delete every college player then, if your notability rules state that being a pro makes an article notable or not. Whether I'm the creator or not, being an all-conference selection and being a multiple starter should be enough notability for our "rules". John ( talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Some college players can be notable; it just so happens that this one is not. How many athletes from how many colleges are All-BIG EAST in a given sport? Just because John Smith from Rutgers is Second Team All-Big EAST tennis, this does not make the person notable. Timneu22 ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    There is a substantial difference between being an all-conference selection in tennis and football. This is obvious. John ( talk) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    This may be obvious to you — a West Virginian who follows American sports — but tennis has a more global following than American Football. Wikipedia is global. Timneu22 ( talk) 23:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  17:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Devin Ebanks

    Devin Ebanks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Like many of the other articles, this one is an orphan page. Timneu22 ( talk) 12:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Darryl Bryant

    Darryl Bryant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this freshman basketball player is not. Timneu22 ( talk) 12:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  17:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Scooter Berry

    Scooter Berry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. The subject is not noteworthy, and this is an orphan page. Timneu22 ( talk) 12:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

    Note: The links to the article on this AfD were broken. They have now been fixed. Thanks ~ mazca t| c 15:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stockton massacre. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Patrick Purdy

    Patrick Purdy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Although the proposal has been made to merge this article with Stockton massacre, there is nothing to merge that doesn't already exist there. The subject fails WP:BLP1E and there is no reason to have a separate article on him when all the pertinent information exists elsewhere. Trusilver 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

    Even though there is not a lot to merge, I'd propose not to delete the page, as a redirect to the Stockton massacre article has to be created anyway. ( Lord Gøn ( talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)) reply
    I don't see any problem with a redirect to Stockton massacre. Trusilver 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Opposed I've changed my mind and added information to the article. See also here ( Lord Gøn ( talk) 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)) reply
    I've read through the additions you have made to the article and while they are good and the article is better than it was before, it is still a violation of WP:BLP1E. When the subject is only know in conjunction with an event he was involved in, we write an article about the event rather than the person. Trusilver 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Initially I wanted to add the biographical part to the Stockton massacre article, though there are people who are vehemently against this. During a discussion at the talk page of mentioned article I was pointed at the following section of the WP:BIO1E:
    Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style.
    As there was quite a lot of news coverage exclusively about Purdy's life I'd say we should keep the article about him. Not that I would mind if it was merged into the Stockton massacre article, but then look at the Talk page. Half of it is bitching about even mentioning the perpetrator's name.( Lord Gøn ( talk) 21:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Redirect to Stockton massacre and merge anything not already mentioned in that article. When your most significant accomplishment is to shoot a bunch of kids at an elementary school and then take your own life, you're a dirtbag who doesn't rate his own article. Mandsford ( talk) 16:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of people notable for good things only. Your suggestion that this is relevant is completely opposed to the idea of a comprehensive encyclopedia, or to NPOV. DGG ( talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Sure, but it can be pretty comprehensively discussed in the article about the crime, and with a redirect, it goes to the appropriate article. Does it matter if typing in his name takes a person to the article about the crime, rather than to this shrine? Mandsford ( talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    And how many articles do we need about the same thing? There is already an article about the incident where everything important about the individual has been covered. What does him having his own article really accomplish besides adding irrelevant information? Trusilver 06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, or Dylan Klebold this guy isn't... not by far. Those individuals had significant and extensive press coverage surrounding their motives, as well as their entire lives basically being laid out and examined by the media. Now, you might say that the only reason that the same didn't happen with Patrick Purdy is because he committed his crime about a decade too early. But still, that doesn't change the fact that the "life" section of this article is 90% irrelevant fluff leading up to the last two paragraphs which are the only thing relevant to the crime. Trusilver 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, or Dylan Klebold this guy isn't... not by far.
    What do you want to say? That he isn't as important as Cho and Harris & Klebold? Well, the shooting certainly was a big story in 1989 and Purdy a person of interest, whose life was examined as far as it is possible, if the subject is a drifter with few personal contacts. And who decides what is "irrelevant fluff" anyway? Is the Background-section of the Charles Whitman article also "irrelevant fluff"? ( Lord Gøn ( talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep A glance at the article shows it is well referenced, and the references' titles alone show that he had significant and extensive press coverage focusing on him, examining his motives and life, like Cho, Harris and Klebold. The world outside Wikipedia clearly considered him notable, so we should too. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong or irrelevant with the life section; once a topic is judged notable, not everything in, or even most of an article has to be related to the cause of notability of the topic, it just has to be related to the notable topic and verifiable. John Z ( talk) 05:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Merge Purdy's notability is related solely to the Stockton massacre, in which he is clearly the major figure. It makes little sense, to me, to have two distinct articles. Merge the two under one name or the other, then redirect the remaining title. If there is nothing to merge from the Purdy article, as Trusilver indicates, than only a Redirect is needed. Tim Ross (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Math in Swimming

    Math in Swimming (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Virtually the whole article is a WP:COATRACK and a WP:FORK about drag (fluid mechanics). —Largo Plazo ( talk) 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. — Aitias //  discussion 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Golden's paradox

    Golden's paradox (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    This article merely repeats its listing on List of paradoxes. I challenge whether it needs an article just to repeat this and whether it's notable enough to deserve an article of its own. Would the entry in the list not be another, since it explains the entry? Greggers ( t • c) 17:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

    Apparently this one was not added to the January 2 AFD list. I have added it to the January 8 list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Not a paradox at all. For what it's worth, the premise is that someone asks "What question has no answer?" and another person responds "This question." then, "since all questions have answers" it's a paradox. No, it's an incorrect answer. The rest of it is "Alternatively, if one answered 'Not this question', no paradox exists." If there's an option for no paradox, it's not a paradox. Mandsford ( talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete as patent nonsense. -- Lockley ( talk) 04:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_January_8&oldid=1116703906"

    Top Of Page

    Home • Search • Translate

    © CSE