Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 30

< January 29 January 31 >

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The result was Nomination withdrawn Following the presentation of Russian-language sources. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Journal (website)

Russian Journal (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article claims the subject is "the first Russian political tribune in the Internet," but I am unable to locate any independent verification of that statement. The article does not meet WP:V and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm going to bed now, and am too tired to read much Russian, but I can see from the snippets displayed that many of these Google News archive and these Google Books hits are about this web site. The search is for "Russian Journal"+internet. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot read Russian, but I will accept your argument in good faith and withdraw the nomination. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 31 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. Insufficient notability to warrant inclusion separate from the school. Local newspaper articles are not enough to assert notability, especially when they are not 100% about the teacher. Any mention of this individual should be limited to the school article. yandman 10:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mengullo, Randy

Mengullo, Randy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - Vanity page, recreated previously deleted article, fails WP:Notability - User234 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this user, if memory serves, has created and had deleted similar articles before. The problem then, as now, is lack of notability of the subject. The formula used by the author, as far as I can tell, is: Person Won Lots of Awards, Awards are Mentioned Briefly in Local Press, Person is Notable. Unless somebody can show me that the awards are themselves significant, and/or that the subject's achievements are in some other ways notable (youngest X to do Y, world record in Z event, etc.), then I'm sticking to a "delete" recommendation. I do see that the author is a self-proclaimed "fanatic" about martial arts, and I wish him/her well in that area, but I don't think these little articles about people from the Jack and Jill school and similar are going to have a lot of staying power here. My advice would be to dig into the subject of martial arts and find article subjects that meet WP standards more effectively. In good faith,  J L G 4 1 0 4  01:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see your point. But this subject had also contributed a big part in JJS community for establishing martial arts in a real institution not just a small group but as a regular subject in physical education class for the whole year round for 14 years with a thousand of students every year. I also read the references and the press releases which signify the credibility of the subject. Yes, he maybe training or fucos with the age group and juniors categories but yes he made an impact in his chosen field by capturing many championship titles up to the national level competitions. Correct me if I'm wrong, wikipedia is for everybody and that include kids and it is just formal to include also kids who are achieving at their age not just for adults with world champion title. One thing more, how can you ignore a multi-awarded coach that his references speaks for his credibility? Just like a coin which has two side; a winning team with a dedicated coach behind it.1 Hoy! Pinoy ako. 00:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Do you really think these little articles about people from the Jack and Jill school and similar are going to have a lot of staying power here??? For sure, others don't really think like you do. How can a newcomer develop new article when in the first place you are not helping and even opening the eye about the potential of the article. If Jjskarate won't write about JJS articles and people behind it, will you do the honor? — MMaAsia Sambon Hajime!! 05:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The awards are very significant because it build a strong foundation of the existence of the said sport program in school wherein we can evaluate and formulate if it is effective and progressive curriculum both in competition and in self-defense training wherein thousand of students and other people in the community will be benefited of the results and affected if will not supervised accordingly. Added more, it simply signify that the person concern or connected in that institution are not just self-proclaimed martial artist but rather a qualified one and most of all an achiever in his chosen field.jjska®ate 空手|道® 08:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete recreation of redirected article Randy Mengullo (per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Randy_Mengullo.). JJL (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:Note -"Significant coverage". Persona is not encylopedic IMO. Article also violates WP:NPOV. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Secondary sources are sufficient in form and all very credible. The article just need a little edit or modification to pass the standard, I don't see any reasons to delete the article when some veteran wikipedians can help or extend a helping hand to improve the article. Anyway, we're here to help and maintain good articles.1 Hoy! Pinoy ako. 01:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Reliable sources about his coaching career can be verified, pass WP:CREATIVE. Notable and respected coach/teacher in the Philippines with online citations and references are credible with lead photo front pageexposure in local newspaper and contributed article in national newspaper/magazine.— MMaAsia Sambon Hajime!! 03:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the creator of this article, I think it's definitely worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Local newspapers are all substantials references for his accomplishments as a coach and his contribution to the thousand of student from elementary up to high school is a good criteria of WP:CREATIVE for his endigenous and realistic ideas in developing the physical and moral aspect of his students, particularly in the martial arts world for which they are recognizable. With all of the awards in local up to national level competitions with print media as secondary sources listed, it just seems appropriate. To me, if you're achievements are recognized in the community and thousand of students and parents are believing in your advocacy and journalists are interested in your story, that makes you at least notable enough for Wikipedia. Its not important if you belong in the 3rd world country which is less previlege when it comes to technology compared to highly developed countries but the impact and respect you gain in your community and in many lives is the the true meaning of life.jjska®ate 空手|道® 03:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Those thousand of Jack and Jill students undergone karate training under Randy Mengullo? — MMaAsia Sambon Hajime!! 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All Jack and Jill students are required to join the karate training under sensei Randy Mengullo beacuse it is part of the school curriculum integrated and graded in P.E. class for the whole year round. For those who have potentials they are trained for competition in many athletic meet headed by Randy Mengullo and he organized this sport program in Jack and Jill School and Castleson High way back in 1994 up to the present.jjska®ate 空手|道® 05:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The level of his coaching career is a manifestation and definite claim of notability; has employed in the formal and prominent institution with more or less 1,500 students actively participating in the training and has garnered some attention both in local and national paper. The article has potential but really need a good editor to survived from deletion.空手道® "avec les mains ou les pieds" 09:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I personally don't think it meets WP:CREATIVE Article does not state recognition by peers, has not garnered a new theory or concept, It would appear with a quick review of the references supplied, that they are in reguards to the school, or the students, Relationships do not confer notability. Would we keep an article for your high school teacher who is 80 years old and had 20,000 students, some of whom won the Nobel Prize? Unless the references can state HIS notability, then I retain my vote for delete. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Establishing martial arts training in the real institution and include it as a school curriculum is not a good idea? or I may say it's an old concept? And why the JJS admin continue hiring additional new instructors... does it mean the person concern does not state recognition by peers? I doubt if your elementary school offer a martial arts training for all students. Teaching martials in school is a unique profession and only few has the gift or skills to do it. Just like the Nobel Prize awardees, they are the chosen few.空手道® "avec les mains ou les pieds" 01:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Then write an article about the school. My school had a teacher who taught Drama and Tai Chi, I'm not writing articles about her :P Look, this isn't personal, its all about the guidelines, as set forth by the Wikipedia community. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Finished writing articles about the school: Jack and Jill School and Castleson High. jjska®ate 空手|道® 07:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We will try to apply WP:CREATIVE or creative professionals as a martial artist to the person concern. It states that:
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
With my personal opinion having been established martial arts program in school for 14 years and the result is positive likewise the number of students are growing and the school is achieving in that field for me he is an important figure or is widely cited by his peers and fellow instuctors/coach.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
Just like Bruce Lee revolutionized martial arts with his Jeet kune do concept to brighten new ideas in traditional fighting. The subject also develop new technique and concept in teaching martial arts to kids which traditionally suited for adults. Which the program for sure suited for their age, interest, physical and mental capabilities. I may personally say that training with adults would be intirely different compare to elementary children. The teaching techniques were probably interesting because some kids may find the training strenuous or boring to those who have background in martial arts. In short the subject revolutionalized traditional martial arts training to an effective training for kids in the large group.— MMaAsia Sambon Hajime!! 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Bruce Lee had an impact outside of his own school. There are a great many instructors who teach young children--almost anyone who runs a commercial school does so. You may enjoy his training program but if it has "revolutionized" training methods, who else is using this technique? How is it being taught to other instructors? This is preposterous aggrandizement. JJL (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Bruce Lee had a great impact outside of his own school because he is an actor and he even convinced me. There are many great instructor worldwide and anyone who runs a commercial school teach young children too. But are they handling thousand of children every year? Probably, a dozen or two are substantial, or a hundred is great, but a thousand... I doubt it. But it is reality in JJS Karate Dojo. One of a kind.— MMaAsia Sambon Hajime!! 07:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're missing something. I think something's being missed here. This figure may seem "notable" in any number of ways (or wonderful, or awesome, or great, or important, or whatever), but WP has criteria for notability, and I think we should stick with those criteria. There are many, many wondeful coaches, athletes, and so forth around the world. Thousands. Tens of thousands. But until somebody shows me clearly and convincingly that the subject of this article merits inclusion based on Wikipedia criteria, then I'll stand by my delete. This does not mean I cannot be persuaded: I often change my mind in this forum. Plus, I am just one person who happens to have fallen into this discussion. There are many more out there, and I have nothing to contribute but my interpretation of WP policy.  J L G 4 1 0 4  16:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Does the subject fails all the criteria? or somehow he pass some of it and just needed little attention/correction about the details and info of the article?空手道® "avec les mains ou les pieds" 01:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Ok, I understand that more than one contributor to this discussion feels that the subject is notable, but I cannot give credence to somebody's impassioned "feeling" that a subject is notable. We have criteria to deal with. Full disclosure: I AM NOT AN ADMIN. It will be up to an admin to sort through this discussion. In the meantime, here's my accounting:
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
I do not see significant coverage. The most recent article is by the subject himself, and it is a brief piece on why he finds teaching rewarding. Nothing wrong with that. But here, that fails the test.
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
No real problem here, but I do not believe passing this test alone is sufficient.
  • "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
The sources are all local coverage, akin to a village paper covering its local high school contests. Not sufficient, in my view.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
Per above, the most recent, potentially worthwhile source, was written by the subject himself. Not good enough.
  • "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.
Given the above, I fall on the side that says, no guarantee. And in this case, this subject fails the notability test, from my perspective.
You may ask, well what do YOU suggest, Mr. JLG4104? Fair enough. If this person is indeed a really important, beloved figure in his locality, then sooner or later he should become the subject of more coverage by a broader range of larger-scale journalistic and other kinds of sources. When that happens, he may become notable here, as far as I can see.  J L G 4 1 0 4  03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you for that info. Please also try to consider that Karatedo as a sport is not in the priority list of many large-scale journalistic/sports writers compared to boxing, basketball, football and etc., the organization itself is also having a hard time getting sponsors because we are not a multi-dollar event/tournament. What I'm trying to emphasis is, it is very hard nowadays for a karateka to established names compared to other athletes like in boxing and tennis players which is a good source in the article of sports page. Seldom that a karateka will be the top story of the newspaper or other media, lucky if you will be included as a box news. Hope you get my point in dealing with media coverage which personally I find it disavantage to many martial artists. 空手道® "avec les mains ou les pieds" 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do see and respect what you are saying. I see the passion coming through, and I respect that. Part of the problem is that WP, as I see it, is not really a place for pinning up pictures (in a sense) of people who happen to be popular or loved-- it is not a popularity contest. But this does not have to be the end of the story-- you could take it up as a discussion at WP:Notability. I hope my comments have helped at least a little bit.  J L G 4 1 0 4  11:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to clear things up the Visayan Daily Star and Sunstar are members of PPI (Philippine Press Institute), the national association of Philippine Newspaper. Both are respected newspapers in the Philippines with more than 20 years of existence and garnered many journalism awards in the country and not akin to a village paper covering its local high school contests.jjska®ate 空手|道® 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I see it, martial arts instructor in the Philippines don't pay much or prankly speaking they struggled to make a living except of course if you have a permanent job (rather than just teaching martial arts) or may hired in the institution (chances are very low, ratio 2:50) for a coach/trainer position. I may say the subject of this article is not just interesting but also important for the reason that he make a great contribution not just in school but among children of all walks of life in developing confidence and discipline matching with his accomplishments in many tournament which make him more convincing. I'm not a veteran wikipedian but somehow I feel his contribution is very significant.1 Hoy! Pinoy ako. 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Unfortunately, the article does not state this as a claim of Notability, again as I pointed out earlier, most of the references have little to do with him, only mentioning his name. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above, enough said. Tcrow777 Talk 10:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - His info box calls him Sir Randy, has this individual been Knighted? Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - In the Philippines we call or address male teacher as Sir and Maam, Ms and Madam to female teacher. We're not talking about knighted or position/rank in the society but it the respect we offer to our teacher as our 2nd parent in school.jjska®ate 空手|道® 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - Additional info/guidelines about Wiki:Matialartsproject:
Pictures may be relevant, and always help liven up an article. Pictures may include:
  • organization logos (check copyright and trademark issues first!)
  • uniforms
  • training equipment
  • important people
  • Consider adding a small and short video of a characteristic drill or exercise. See the m:Video Policy first.
I added pictures and videos regarding this matter. picture 1, picture 2, picture 3, video 1, video 2, video 3— MMaAsia Sambon Hajime!! 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has gone too long enough. Every teacher in every school does what he does. His mentions in newspapers are trivial at best. The newspapers he is mentioned are local at best. PPI? As far as I'm concerned, all newspapers of regional importance belongs to the PPI? Holla back at me if he Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Philippine Star has extensive and multiple coverages of him. The fact that martial arts aren't covered a lot by mainstream media means this won't make it. –Howard the Duck 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question:
  • You're trying to say that those newspapers are not credible? and less importance compared to those mainstream media?
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Notability_guidelines General points stated that: A single local newspaper article is probably not enough to assert notability, but national mention with some details or multiple local sources that "make a case" for notability. Does he pass this guideline?
  • Does every teacher in school who wrote an article about his job captured the attention of many or I may say pass the standard of Philippine Daily Inquirer as you emphasis? Will somebody does and his article was published nationwide. 1 Hoy! Pinoy ako. 07:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Breakwell

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

Sources are incredibly thin, article is largely the work of a WP:SPA who has written from obvious personal knowledge about this subject and subject's girlfriend, and nothing else. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Breakwell appears to be an established figure, writing serious articles about disability for the Times as well as his more humorous contributions in the Sunday Times and Independent; also involvement in a BBC disability magazine programme. Article is adequately supported by references and an external link to some of Breakwell's articles. This article has been maintained and updated for over 4½ years by several editors. It appears to have been proposed for deletion by association with the recently created Lucy Soper article, whose deletion I support. -- Euchiasmus (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Euchiasmus, article does not immediatly violate WP:N, and may qualify under WP:BIO. Reportedly the subject of multiple upcoming films, it would definatly qualify for inclusion, if the films are released. Sephiroth storm (talk)
  • Keep. Notable for the writing and broadcasting. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – Seems notable, but with gushing love POV. Also a stub. Tcrow777 Talk 10:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Soper

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

Unsourced WP:BLP, fails WP:CSD#A7 but notability is unsupported by any sources. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 30 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 00:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pizzerias

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

This page duplicates Category:Pizzerias with the obvious disadvantage of not being automatically updated. It has no additional content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawdroid (talk • contribs) 23:07, January 30, 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep as this article may easily be expanded. Jeff Biggs (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - aren't these more conventionally referred to as pizza "chains"? A "pizzeria" can be any local shop that serves pizza. That doesn't seem to be the article's subject matter.  J L G 4 1 0 4  01:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of pizza chain restaurants. SMSpivey (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To begin with, as Jlg4104 points out, this article is misnamed. Further, contrarily to Jeff Biggs, I fail to see how this list could be expanded in a way that does make it redundant to the category. ¨¨ victor falk 04:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The list isn't redundant to the category, as (1) it contains redlinks and (2) could be expanded to contain additional information -- e.g., I'd suggest the article maintainers switch to a sortable table format rather than bullet list and include information like number of restaurants owned, date of establishment, perhaps even a brief summary of the styles of pizza offered. As it stands, the list isn't much better than the categories (but it still has redlinks), yet it could be improved substantially. In response to Jlg4104 & SMSpivey, some of the entries are for pizzerias (e.g. Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana) and some are for chains (e.g. Pizza Hut). Perhaps the best approach is to rename to List of pizzerias and pizzeria chains. JulesH (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In support of the nominator's and Victor Falk's positions. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "There's room for improvement" is a polite way of saying that this isn't a very good article. This is what an indiscriminate list is, something where one can't discriminate between one item on the list or another. Ironically, most people can say a lot about the difference between Pizza Hut and Domino's and Papa John's; this article is nothing more than a catchall of names of places where a person can order a pizza. I would add that by using the name "pizzeria" for a chain of pizza restaurants, it appears that the authors aren't knowledgable about the subject and have done nothing to say. Mandsford (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories do not supersede lists - see WP:CLS. If the list needs more work that's fine - see our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useful list that provides navigation aid around articles about pizzeria chains. Allows annotation and inclusion of chains that do not have articles. There is often a need for lists in addition to categories (see WP:CLS). Perhaps renaming would be useful. —G716 <T·C> 12:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if someone adds some more value to it. Currently users would be better off using the category system. The rescue squad seem to like this kind of article so I've listed it for them. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pointless list. This was what categories were made for. Garion96 (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories were made for several things, but I assure you that providing a rationale for deleting lists was not one of them. In fact the category guideline specifically says "However, categories are not a substitute for lists, and you will find that many articles belong to both lists and categories." DHowell (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all categories should be made into a list. This is one of them. Garion96 (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You haven't given a reason why, other than your personal opinion that it is "pointless". DHowell (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh brother. Just as the comment below is your personal opinion. It also wasn't my only reason of course, as stated above. I could of course add "delete per wp:not if you insist. Garion96 (talk)
  • Keep per WP:CLN and the fact that it satisfies all three purposes of lists on Wikipedia: information, navigation, and development. DHowell (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A list is not a category, but I don't see what purpose this list serves other than a category. If it expands, it would appear to become more directory-ish, which Wikipedia is not. If there is other relevant information that can/will be added for each listed Pizzeria to make this list worthwhile, it would be helpful to see what that information is. Otherwise, the list can be recreated if and when that additional information becomes available. Rlendog (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - May be weak now, but certainly holds the three purposes of lists.--MrFishGo Fish 21:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please see the improvements that have been made; there is now information other than just names and links. DHowell (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has WP:IINFO been removed from WP:NOT yet? / edg ☺ ☭ 12:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't matter in this case as this is hardly an indiscriminate list. -- Banjeboi 14:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And clean-up. Lists serve useful purposes that categories do not. Many users are completely unaware of categories and those categories themselves are often wrong, incomplete and outdated. This list is also hardly indiscriminate. Everything points to improving it. -- Banjeboi 14:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest leaving the name for now and ensuring that notable specific pizza stores are labeled as such. It would help to separate them into their own section for comparison. -- Banjeboi 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We shouldn't be in the business of figuring out which pizzerias are notable and which are not (why is Famiglia missing? why is .....). A list should either be reasonably exhaustive (or capable of being reasonably exhaustive) in the sense that the criteria for inclusion should be well defined, or it should just not there. The only way this list will work is if it becomes the yellow pages for every pizzeria in the world. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTREPOSITORY (though it is only indirectly a collection of links, that is sort of the effect). --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 19:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as RegentsPark explains, with no well-defined criteria for notability this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE in nature and should just not be there. Furthermore the indiscrimate information which it has been embellished does little more than to enhance its role as an (admittedly) useful directory, neither of which goals are in Wikipedia's remit. Benefix (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy squared

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

Non-notable concept. The creator of this article even says that this theorem is "first appearing publicly in this Wikipedia article." None of the speedy deletion criteria can be applied to this article, so I've brought this article to AfD. Cunard (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This falls somewhere between made up and complete bollocks. --S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bollocks Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I feel like this is just blatant advertising of one person's philosophy. If anyone feels like it, maybe it should be copied to the creator's subpage?
It's not a speedy.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Obvious spam. --Peephole (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't think of any obvious criterion under which this could be speedied (I respectfully disagree with the contention that it's spam, and WP:BOLLOCKS, although appropriate, isn't a speedy criterion), but I certainly agree that there's no place for it here. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; WP:BALLS, WP:MADEUP, WP:SOAP, WP:SNOW, and, for God's sake, WP:Common sense.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BALLS. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer in popular culture

Lucifer in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced trivia and topic itself is already far better covered in Satan in popular culture. Created by known (and now blocked) sockpuppet. Fails WP:N and WP:V. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge With Satan in popular culture (which is, itself, not very well referenced). Pastor Theo (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Satan in popular culture. SMSpivey (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and this one shouldr eally have been done outside of AfD as a requested merge, its obvious enough. DGG (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Satan in popular culture. ¨¨ victor falk 05:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Satan in popular culture. There are still a handful of duplicate In popular culture article, hopefully these can get sorted out soon. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the subject has attracted and been covered by scholars in published books or merge and redirect as cited above, but perhaps merge both the Lucifer and Satan in popular culture articles to one on The Devil in popular culture? Also, it should be noted that we actually have separate articles on Lucifer and Satan and so a case could be made for having separate "in popular culture" articles as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment unless theres some distinction I;m not aware of it sounds like all three articles should be merged. Artw (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination obviously fails WP:BEFORE - the article didn't even have a talk page, let alone discussion. And a merger may not the best result as many references make specific play on the name, e.g. Lucifer's Hammer. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Although often treated as synonyms Satan and Lucifer are not synonyms. Similarly, "Lucifer in popular culture" and "Satan in popular culture" are not synonyms. Geo Swan (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Nominator asserts that the article was created by a known and blocked sockpuppet. I checked. I don't think that is what is said at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/YourLord (3rd). FWIW this article was created after the individual was accused of sockpuppetry. For what it is worth the person who started the article made exactly one edit to it. Close to two dozen edits were made prior to the nomination. So, the sockpuppetry allegation is irrelevant to discussions as to whether I am not going to speculate on why nominator focused on the sockpuppetry allegation. I will state it is a lapse from complying with the goal of focusing on issues, not personalities. Geo Swan (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noted it because the article was a CSD candidate for being created by a blocked user (and it isn't an allegation, it is confirmed). The bulk of the article is what he created then, with IPs adding a few more unsourced "examples" which is common in all such popular culture things. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The sockpuppetry investigation concluded that there was not enough evidence to conclude he was a sockpuppet. That sounds like he was cleared to me. (2) WRT your claim: "the article was a CSD candidate for being created by a blocked user" -- really? How come the the log of actions again User:Omegafouad is empty? It appears to me that you made a serious lapse from policy, and that you really owe the community an open acknowledgment of that. Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't own anything and I haven't made a lapse from policy. The fact is he has ADMITTED to being a sock puppet and to having those socks, a fact you apparently hadn't noticed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into a The Devil in popular culture page. Yes Lucifer and Satan have differing ancient or classical origins but I think most pop (if not all) culture material really treats them all like Old Nick/Devil/Satan etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per the growing consensus. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as it is an encyclopedic topic for an article. — Reinyday, 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and discuss merge possibilities on an appropriate talk page. DHowell (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with either Satan in popular culture (as Satan and Lucifer are synonymous in pop vernacular) or with Lucifer (if they can are distinquished), which is only 26kb. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and start a merge discussion. A thoughtful discussion on merging seems to make sense. There is interesting and useful content here and notching up the quality will serve everyone well. -- Banjeboi 14:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King of conspiracy

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

non-notable band, most of the article is spam. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no notability, no sources, advert. Jofakēt (talk) 22:20, 30 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 17:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ritchie

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

There's enough of a claim of importance (starring role) to avoid speedy deletion, but gsearch not turning up notability. When searching for name + tv series (-wikipedia), hits are entirely passing mentions or wiki mirrors. Gnews not turning up this Jessica Ritchie at all. If deleted, please consider salting, as this article has been recreated many times. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no notability. Jofakēt (talk) 22:09, 30 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; discussion whether and how the article should be merged with Herbert Jones (footballer) may continue at the article's talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taffy jones

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

No references, I wasn't able to find anything relevant using Google - possible hoax. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: looks like a hoax to me, especially the bit about losing a testicle in a tackle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofakēt (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a hoax, here's a reference: [1]. I'm not surprised google doesn't know much about someone from so long ago, though.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I forgot to add that the bit about Dixie Dean's testicle doesn't belong there. It's already adequately covered, with references, under Dixie Dean. I'll edit the article accordingly.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsequent comment I fixed various other issues, so the article is now substantially different from its state when nominated for deletion. There's plenty more to be done, though.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good improvements Marshall.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i know all the facts to be tue here, as he was my great grand farther and have seen (vidoes of) him playing, as a school project i asked blackburn rovers for help reaserching him and they had record then so i know him to have been at the club at that time and this with the sources... NOTE: i have a vested interest in the articule, for two reasons 1 he is my great grand farther 2 i created the article. 5M1L3-1T5-C00K13.M0N5T3R (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- oh, that's new information. I agree a merge needs to take place (either Herbert Jones to Albert "Taffy" Jones or vice versa) but we need to be sure what his actual name was first, so we get it right! I'll see if I can dig anything up.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsequent comment -- There was a census in 1911, which is available online here: [2]. Jones would've been fifteen. According to that census, the search term "Albert Jones" in "Blackpool" returns exactly one result of a fifteen-year-old and "Herbert Jones" in "Blackpool" returns none. (There was a "Herbert Jones" but he was 14.) This together with the fact that his great-grandson believes him to have been called "Albert" suggests to me that we need to merge Herbert into Albert and not the other way around.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1911 census was held in April 1911, so our subject would in fact have only been 14, so that points to his name actually being Herbert. The Association of Football Statisticians and the Football Association's databases both list him as Herbert, as presumably does the book listed as a source on the other article. That's multiple sources for his name having been Herbert, whereas all Ghits under the Albert version seem to be mirrors of the one piece on the Blackpool F.C. website...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was complex.

The primary presented argument for deletion was that this constitutes a non-neutral fork of another article. While some counter-arguments have been presented, the top of Great_Sphinx_of_Giza#Racial_characteristics makes them untenable. Despite its nonstandard naming convention, this looks like an article, appears in mainspace, and sidesteps editorial consensus that exists (or doesn't exist) at Ancient Egyptian race controversy. However, article development does not occur by magical elves working at night, and good-faith attempts to develop consensus though collective editting should be encouraged. Normally this should occur on the talk page of the relevent article.

Although userspace is a distant second choice and userfication has been mooted, the highly polarised debate combined with the quasi-ownership of articles outside mainspace makes it questionable that this method would result in a positive outcome: Less people would see the article, the same editors would in all likelyhood circle the wagons and re-run the same arguments.

For that reason, I submit that the rough consensus based upon the arguments presented is that this article should be deleted. I will of course selectivly restore references etc upon request.

brenneman 00:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?

AfDs for this article:
Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We don't do this sort of article. This is essentially a WP:CFORK of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, in fact re-using some of the content there. There is a need for the sort of coverage but, it needs to be properly split up into smaller articles with a less argumentative tone and properly framed as per WP:FRINGE. Moreschi (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Partisan fork. Delete (or merge anything salvageable back into the main article). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) [Note: see below for an additional option][reply]
  • Delete or merge: POV fork. Jofakēt (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not a fork of Ancient Egyptian race controversy – it is a spinoff which exists to allow all sides of a particular debate to be discussed neutrally, without breaking the UNDUE rule in the main article. I would have personally preferred to include this material in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, rather than create a spinoff, and indeed I have made several attempts to include it there, but the material was repeatedly deleted apparently because the “scope” of that article does not include these issues. If the “scope” of the original article specifically does not permit this debate, then what is the point of suggesting that the material be merged back into the original article????? I have included cross references so that readers will be able to get the full picture, and we can add as many more as it takes.
Certainly some of the material is duplicated, because that material is valid to this article too. However as this article is more complete, perhaps the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article should be seen as a spin-off of this article, as it has been pared down to describe only a very narrow section of the debate. Once we have got a proper article which properly presents these issues, a number of other related articles can be trimmed down and simplified.
The article has not been created to push a POV at all – the intention is to give readers all of the sides of a story which is far from cut and dried. Nor is it "partisan" – please make the effort to cite specific examples of "partisan" and I will correct them immediately. The article doesn’t take any particular viewpoint, and if you want to add more (valid) info to improve the balance then please do so. It is indeed fringe, but this has been clearly stated in the lead to the article, and each topic debated states the mainstream consensus clearly. Although the issues debated are valid I don't believe there is any danger of a reader confusing the fringe with the mainstream. However if you feel we need to be more explicit, then please add what is needed.
If you are unhappy with the tone then please modify it – this is a first draft and it certainly needs polishing. However demanding that it be split into a number of smaller articles is not appropriate – that’s exactly how we got to this point in the first place.
We could easily have had this discussion on the talk page, but somebody with a quick trigger finger jumped straight to a Deletion warning on the first pass – why? Why did that person not give the benefit of the doubt, assume good faith and make a constructive effort to first resolve whatever technical problems exist? This material has repeatedly been squashed in other articles for a variety of reasons – what is so threatening about this debate?
Wdford (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I also think it is terribly bad form to nominate an this for deletion considering it was only just created and that efforts to write this material into the main article have been consistently reverted. I don't think it will ever be a very large article, but it deserves mention in context of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, but that article is on probation, and as no one can reach a consensus on how to expand that article, I feel that for now the best course of action is to write this as a subarticle of Ancient Egyptian race controversy and we can merge parts of it back into the main article as appropriate at a later date. --Pstanton (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Oppose deletion for now, But in the future this content should be merged into Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, once there is a semblance of consensus.Wapondaponda (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the problem with the article lies in the title, which seems to indicate at the outset that the article will present arguments in favor of the "black ancient Egypt." Actually, if you read the article fully, it does not seem to present one particular point of view—in fact it seems to be fairly well balanced, presenting both sides of each argument. If the community decides to keep the article, it should be renamed to a more non-POV title. I agree with Wapondaponda (comment above) that the points made in this article should be covered in Ancient Egyptian race controversy. •••Life of Riley (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mainly, what Pstanton, Wapondponda, and Lif of Riley said. Editors involved should consider forms of dispute resolution, such as WP:RFC, WP:3, the mediation cabal, WP:RFAr in order to collaborate together in order to write an encyclopedic article on this admittedly very controversial hypothesis/theory.¨¨ victor falk 06:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag for Merger -- Whether or not this is a POV fork, it is clearly covering the same ground at the "controversy" article. On the other hand, this article has much fuller citations. The appropriate course is thus for them to be merged. However, this is not something that the closing Admin can be expected to do: it needs to be done by some one who knows the literature and can provide a NPOV merged article. I appreciate that this is an area on whcih strong views are held. I had understood that the acceopted view was that the Egyptians were a Mediterranean people with the swarthy skin colour typical of that region in contrast with negroid peoples from further south. However, I am not a specialist and my opinion counts for little. The probelm with this article is ultimately its title - "evidence for" inevitably implies a POV-basis for the article, something contrary to WP policy. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I oppose deletion for now. If later people like Moreschi and Woland come to understand the need for a balanced Ancient Egyptian race controversy then it can be merged with.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extreme pov throughout this fork article, hardly anything worthy of salvage.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article has only just been created, I think the majority understand that a brand new article is hardly perfect right from the start. The issue is the main article at Ancient Egyptian race controversy is highly contentious, and is actually on probation. This page exists to illustrate arguments in favor of the black egypt theory, and we hope that eventually a consensus can be reached on the Ancient Egyptian race controversy talk page on how this material can be merged into the main article. --Pstanton (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, I recommend userfying the page so that it can be worked upon and eventually merged into the main article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion, Mike. Please clarify what sort of userfying you require, and I'll get right on it. Please could you simultaneously lobby to have the scope of the main article broadened so that this content will be allowed in once we are all satisfied? Wdford (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about renaming the article "Theories on the Race of the Ancient Egyptians" - would that be sufficiently neutral? If not, what title would satisfy, while we wait for the scope to be opened up at [Ancient Egyptian race controversy]]? Wdford (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of that title. It's very neutral and better than the current "controversies" title. There is some precedent for the title (see [3]). •••Life of Riley (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Theories" implies the existence of a position that can be argued in a scientific and evidential way. In this case, such a position does not exist in reality, and so it would be wrong to have a title that implies that these fringe opinions deserve to be classed as proper theories. Meowy 03:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is nothing more than a POV fork of the "Ancient Egyptian race controversy" article, with a POV title, and any legitimate content that it contains would also belong in that other article. Meowy 03:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very dogmatic viewpoint - not at all neutral. There are many who believe the position can be argued in a scientific and evidential way, and this site seeks to air those various arguments. If they fail to convince then their poverty will be self-evident, but there is enough "scientific evidence" around to give the debate notability. If you believe you can prove that "such a position does not exist in reality", then please submit your evidence for consideration (with references etc, as normal).
We fully intend to merge the article into the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article as soon as possible, but meanwhile we would be interested in seeing your evidence please. Wdford (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wdforf and Mike in renaming the article into "Theories on the Race of the Ancient Egyptians". Of cause those theories do exist. There are even more scientific evidence put forward in studies for a Black Egypt than for something else Egypt. One cannot like Meowy just make dogmatic statement. Let's work in a new vision and we will see which theories lak evidence. Of cause, we are not there to judge theories, but to report them.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can make statements, dogmatic or otherwise - what I can't do is claim that those statements are "theories". A theory, in the context of an encyclopedia entry, isn't just someone's opinion, or belief. There is no mainstream scientific evidence for a "Black Egypt", so nothing exists to justify a title having the word "theories". Meowy 18:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't do research in articlespace. We don't fork articles for research. We don't allow speculation in articles. Merge would imply that there were useful and uncontroversially-sourced material - however, if this were the case then said material would already be included in the parent article. This is pretty much a no-brainer.Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Chris, the reason the said material has not been included in the parent article is because an editor that side feels that the parent article should only be about the history of the debate, but should exclude the debate itself. This attitude has lead to the parent article being placed on probation. The said material is actually very notable and well-sourced. This article is not about doing research, its about reporting all the existing facts (with proper references)and allowing the reader to make an informed decision of their own. Have you actually followed this issue before giving your verdict? Wdford (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have the parent page watchlisted, yes. I consider myself a good judge of how a Wikipedia article should be laid out to present an encyclopedic and neutral description of a subject, and don't consider the page in question to be an example of that. Instead, it is presented as an investigative piece which attempts to make a case to the reader. Wikipedia is not an appropriate host for such pieces. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, you look to be making an interpretation. Ideology put aside, an encyclopedic article must report the state of the research. That is what we expect from the article on the race of the ancient Egyptians. But up to now, because of an administrator mainly, Moreschi, it is impossible. So the article is lame!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restricting Statement: Some of the content can and should be merged. However, since the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy is highly disputed, other content can't be merged without a throughout discussion. See Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Zara1709 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of a “theory” is as follows:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another;
2: abstract thought – speculation;
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>;
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>;
4b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase “in theory” <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>;
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>;
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation;
6b: an unproved assumption – conjecture;
6c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>;
I don’t see anything in there about “mainstream scientific evidence” being a prerequisite, do you? In fact, the dictionary repeatedly uses words like “speculation”, and “abstract”, and “hypothetical”, and “conjecture”, and my favourite – “an unproved assumption”. Clearly, using the word “theory” in the title of this article would be more or less perfectly appropriate.

Wdford (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge certain aspects into Ancient Egyptian race controversy, or set up as a supplemental working space -- a sort of sandbox, if you will -- for that article (and useful, perhaps, in the crafting of other, related articles. We don't need a separate article. We need the editors currently involved in Ancient Egyptian race controversy to stay, slog it out, and come together to create something accurate, encyclopedic and informative. deeceevoice (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename. I think the article should stand. While still fairly flawed, at this moment it's a far better overview of the history of the debate over the "race"/ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians than the article it branched off from -- for many of the reasons I've stated elsewhere herein. It's approach is broader, inclusive -- and it doesn't start off with Afrocentrism in the lead paragraph, which the parent article does. Such an approach grossly misrepresents the nature/origins of the debate, severely limits the scope of the article and, therefore, ultimately fails sufficiently to inform the reader. With, obviously, some work, this article should supplant the parent article -- for the reasons specified above. deeceevoice (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. Although there was substantial agreement to merge Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? into the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, it seems some people want a paragraph by paragraph referendum on such changes. As this approach is going to be tedious and time-consuming, I propose that we meanwhile build the new Ancient Egyptian race controversy article on the Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? site, move it to a new name and then polish and build consensus there before merging the fully built and agreed article into Ancient Egyptian race controversy.
On this basis I have rebuilt the Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? site. There is lots more to do. Comments and contributions please.
As the current name Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? is offending some people, would it be acceptable to move this entire process to a new site, called “Theories on the Race of the Ancient Egyptians”, or something similar, while we build agreement on the content and layout?
Wdford (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are proper theories regarding the racial origin of the ancient Egyptians and on the origin of the various dynasties that ruled ancient Egypt. And then there is this very marginal "Black Ancient Egypt" stuff. It would be incorrect to over emphasise the academic acceptance of the latter by giving it a title that implies it is part of those mainstream theories. Meowy 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. There is content in this article that should be included in the existing "controversy" article, because a comprehensive treatment of the subject should include the arguments of its most notable adherents. The subject obviously is fringe, but its article should clearly set forth the arguments of its adherents in a neutral context that also reflects that all of its positions have been rejected by mainstream researchers. If anyone wants a relatively uninvolved second opinion, feel free to drop me a note. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see why we should be compelled to prance around with blatant pov-forks. If there is valid material, let it be presented at the long-standing, well-developed existing article. If this is a {{workpage}} used for collecting "evidence" or "arguments" by an interested editor, let it be userified. --dab (𒁳) 15:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is exactly our intention to merge the articles, as you would know from having read all of the above before commenting. Unfortunately, the so-called "long-standing, well-developed existing article" has been crippled by protections, edit wars and mass reverts, and is currently completely blocked. It is currently anything but "well-developed". And yet again, this in not POV - please give examples of POV and we will fix them. Please assume good faith. Wdford (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • DB - what you're asking for here is what (I thought) I advocated. Merge the good stuff and move on. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • well, is there any "good stuff", who is supposed to do the job, and in what time-frame. Creation of content forks shouldn't be rewarded. We can userify this effectively private page, and leave it up to the user to "merge" whatever is acceptable in his own good time. No problem. There is no reason to keep this page in article space one minute longer. --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


We would love to merge and move on, but the original article is now crippled, shredded and fully blocked. That's why this site exists temporarily in the first place. Wdford (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clearly content forking with the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article this is just trying to side step the process at the earlier created article--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I disagree. Some editors decided that the Ancient Egyptian race controversy should have a scope limited to a discussion on Afrocentrism. Another article that had non-afrocentric material became warranted. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I assume, Wikiscribe, since you asserted at the Ancient Egyptian race controversy talk-page that the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article "is not a article to try and present proof of the race of the ancient egyptians", you now accept that this article is not a content fork? Wdford (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assumeing that i was stateing that the article is not suppose to be a proof article there are not suppose to be any proof articles the only note worthy thing about this is the controversy itself what legitment Encylopedia tries to make such arguements and this article is trying to fork off that article to provide proof in which certain editors are trying to do to that article its called circumventing there is a reason why the aricle changed names from the race of the ancient egyptians this article is doing the same thing, i don't how familar you are but i know been around that article for almost 2 years now off and on--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, would you then be happy to support changing the name of that article to "History of the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy", so that the content agrees with the name? Wdford (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge I'd like to point out that POV is not a valid reason for deleting an article, and that this article isn't a content fork per se, as the material of which it is comprised in good part was explicitly deleted from Ancient Egyptian race controversy, therefore not duplicated. Although, I will concede two points: this article badly needs to be renamed, and its points need to be presented with more neutrality. It should not come across as trying to make a point for the reader. All that being said, I believe that this can be addressed without any need for deleting the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • pov-forks are a reason for merging. "Merging" means that the fork remains as a redirect. There is no reason to keep a title as obviously mal-formatted as "Arguments/Evidence for a Black Ancient Egypt"? as a redirect. You are damn right the article re-introduces material that was duly deleted from the existing article, after long and hairy disputes. That's what makes it a pov-fork in the first place. Ramdrake, you are not making any sense. I don't see how you, a self-declared "Experienced & Established Editor", can defend the creation of counter-articles re-introducing deleted material under a modified title. That's the very definition of "pov fork", and we can't have that. If the user thinks there is any case for re-introducing the removed material, let him seek consensus on the article talkpage, not go around creating counter-articles. This should be a speedy, the creation of this article was blatantly disruptive, and should have been dealt on an administrative basis immediately. I do hope the closing admin will have the guts to do this correctly after all. --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I question the neutrality of this viewpoint. We can easily change the title to something more acceptable - that can be done in seconds. The material in question was deleted (after disputes of whatever hairiness) because it was agreed (with much dissent) that the scope of the original article should be narrowed (at least that's the official reason.) This is therefore not a "counter-article" which duplicates another article with a different POV, it is the only article that carries this material and is thus "supplementary" rather than "counter". If the narrow-scope team continue to block attempts to build the other article or to merge these articles, then the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article will soon be a sub-article of this one. The creation of this article was not disruptive to anything - please explain what was disrupted (other than some attempts to suppress the material completely?) The Ancient Egyptian race controversy - where I agree this material belongs - was in the throes of an edit war based on differing ideas of scope, so moving this discussion to this article actually reduced the need for disruption at the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I also question your continued use of "POV" - please indicate examples of remaining POV so that they can be reworded. Wdford (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what Wdford said. This would be content forking if the material was removed because it was unencyclopedic. The material was removed because the scope of the article was narrowed, even though the material was acknowledged as discussing a notable viewpoint. Therefore, there should be no prejudice against reintroducing the material somewhere else. Also, we all already agreed the article badly needs to be renamed. However, I believe I now understand better where Dbachmann is coming from.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe the intent of this "article" was for interested editors to withdraw temporarily from the main article in order to best formulate the information in support of a Black Egypt with a view toward later incorporating it back into the main article, properly sourced, properly cited. It was never intended as a standalone article. I believe the difficulty here could be solved forthwith by simply making the "article" an adjunct sort of working page of the main article, leaving the involved editors free to raise certain points, debate their applicability/usefulness to the main article, make sure the information is properly sourced, and agree upon suitable language -- since this process has been stymied by, a dictatorial and threatening approach by, certainly, two administrators and the hand-off to a third and then a fourth, who precipitously locked the article for editing when, IMO, there was no need to do so. The current article has a lead which pigeonholes the entire subject into the framework of Afrocentrism -- which simply does not work. On the other hand, the lead paragraph of the working page of this "article," on the other hand, is far more suitable and reads, '"The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times. The scarcity of 'hard' evidence has served to fuel the debate. The scholarly consensus outside the field of Egyptology is that the concept of "pure race" is incoherent;[1] and that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic.[2]." From the looks of the lead, at least, seems to me the people working on this "article" have a firmer grasp of the appropriate way to approach the subject matter than those who've been riding roughshod over developments at the parent article. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And for the above reasons, I believe the article should be renamed to a less POV title and supplant the existing article at "Controversy over race of the ancient Egyptians" (or whatever the hell it's called). It definitely needs more work, but its approach is far more sound, and it shows promise. deeceevoice (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as content fork. --Folantin (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discreet merge and delete, odd, news-like title, but some sourced excerpts are worthy. Brandспойт 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (Non-Admin Closure). FunPika 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NukeZone

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

No reliable sources establishing notability, delete as per WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Tagged with reliable sources tag since July 2008. Peephole (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I agree it needs additional external support in the article, but it seems to have a loyal fanbase (websites claims 35,000 users). Also, it's been featured in PC Gamer (picture from nukezone website, so it's not open and shut). A lot of the sources are probably in Swedish, so someone who can read Swedish would be helpful to this discussion. I could be swayed strongly either way by objective, third party information. If that doesn't show up though, I'd lean towards keeping it. Shadowjams (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The amount of users is no argument for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reliable coverage is what we're looking for. The PC Gamer article is trivial. --Peephole (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There never was an argument made that the number of users warrants inclusion. However I do argue that the number of users is an important piece to understand the context of the subject's notability. Consciously blinding the discussion from the number of users would be a strangely dogmatic approach. There is absolutely nothing in the notability criteria that indicates that popularity is an irrelevant factor. It indicates that popularity is not itself a notability criteria. I understand the allusion to WP:BIG but that is not the argument here. Shadowjams (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment You claim there are other reliable sources out there, I googled a little and I found nothing. Please, if you think this article should stay, find some yourself and post them. But the way it is now, without reliable sources, it should go. --Peephole (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: sufficient sources, but needs expansion of notability criteria. Jofakēt (talk) 22:15, 30 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, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scandiposis

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

The article, about a specific phobia, does not have any references to show that it is real. A Google search shows nothing either. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above nomination was replaced by PO7skle with "I just checked on Google and this all appears to be correct. No problems" (reverted by Aka042 I thought I did it, but was pipped at the post. Peridon (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Nonsense. Look at the other disorders being investigated. Undergrad boredom or attempted hoax. Peridon (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete One reference is the homepage of a secondary school, the other is a broken link. Probable hoax, sources are bollocks. My google search produced zero results. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Even if it is real, is a condition with only ONE known victim notable? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:00, 30 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 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KDice

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

Non-notable web game. Only a single reliable source. Delete per WP:WEB and WP:CORP as they require multiple sources. Peephole (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Passes WP:WEB with coverage in major game-related review sites, TechCrunch, Kotaku, Jay is Games], etc. Same sites also help it pass WP:CORP. It's not the strongest show of support something could have, but it's something. (it has been covered in DIGG, & Metafilter, too...). SpikeJones (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Changing my aforementioned "weak keep" to "keep". kdice was nominated for a techcrunch "crunchie" award, as was covered in the San Francisco Chronicle. And Channel Register cites kdice as an example of Google-related programming. SpikeJones (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:WEB requires the website to have actually won the award. Second link is yet another trivial mention. --Peephole (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:WEB says the coverage needs to be non-trivial. Which means it needs to be more than "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses". And that's pretty much what the TechCrunch and Kotaku articles are. --Peephole (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: just about meets notability and has sufficient sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofakēt (talk • contribs) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can you elaborate on how you think it meets notability criteria? --Peephole (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Found some sources on this one pretty easily, which I've added. I'm confident there are more out there. This game has attracted a lot of attention from people in the industry. Randomran (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Both the sources ([4], [5]) you provided, contain little more than trivial coverage. --Peephole (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first source "sort of" passes WP:WEB, as it is an award (albeit not a well-known one). In that sense the brevity of the mention can be forgiven. SharkD (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - [6] -- penubag  (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Alexa is not a reliable source, that establishes notability. Especially when its ranking isn't even that great.--Peephole (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the first 2 meet WP:V to show the game exists, but fail WP:GNG and WP:WEB to show it's a notable game. The last to sources should be removed per WP:RS or shown that their publications have been backed up by an actual reliable source.じんない 03:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gamasutra (I'm assuming that's the source you're talking about) is considered reliable within our project per previous consensus. SharkD (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm satisified with the outside coverage that has been presented here. SharkD (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficient sources now for notability, but I suspect more can be gotten with some extensive searching. --MASEM 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This page doesnt break any guidelines or policies to my point of knowledge PSNMand (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The statement - "This is a new phenomenon that merits attention", sums up the problem. Unfortunately, as was pointed out, there are no sources that establish notability and none were added during the discussion. Arguments that "this is interesting" or "I've come across this at my work" can't be counted. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durvexity

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

Just a little history to put things in context. I happened across this article a couple of weeks and dropped a more references tag on it, as well as dropping a message on the WikiProject Economics and Business talk pages. And then I admit it droppped off my radar. The term is used on the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009 and the Lehman Brothers articles and seems to have passed without comment; apprently it is "the duration of the interest-rate yield convexity curve that effectively measures the sensitivity of the price of a fixed income investment to the rate of change of the yield." Perhaps there is such a concept and perhaps it has a name, but the problem I had with the article then and now is that the one source offered does not use the term, and apart from Wiki-mirrors and blogs that quote Wikipedia articles, there seems to be no usage of the word that I can find. This AFD should have input from those more expert on the subject to be safe, and I will happily withdraw the nomination if someone can show usage in reliable sources prior to the terms appearance here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to delete. Looks like original research. Solar Apex (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It looks like a write-up based on an external source. It might not be a well-known concept, but surely that makes it all the more suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Lawdroid (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just 1 source. The concept is interesting though. Solar Apex (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some ghits. An element of notability might lie in the connection between this sort of pseudo-statistical pseudo-mathematics and the mess the financial world has unleashed. (They couldn't factor in the human element and ignored it...) Peridon (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm getting the same ghits, and there are more than in early January, but the problem is that all of them lead back to Wikipedia. Obviously sites that mirror Wikipedia are appearing, and then there are the blog entries which lift sections straight from Wikipedia. What isn't appearing, and what should be, is usage in news stories or other reliable sources. There are absolutely no mentions on Google News, for example, or on Google Scholar. I suppose I have to say that I have been wondering about the edit history of the article and the linkage within Wikipedia. I better point out first that there are technical and style edits to the article which are beyond reproach, but the substantive edits to the article seem to be associated with single purpose, or near single purpose accounts, and edits that link other articles to the Durvexity article are similarly of the same style. Yes, the term has remained unchallenged on a couple of articles, but I am going to stick my head over the parapet here and question the authenticity of this article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a...proliferation of street terms and peculiar terms in finance (which a person studying economics could go a lifetime and not know). I can't say that this one is or isn't used, and if it is, that it merits an article. but searching for it will be complicated. I'll check back over the weekend. Protonk (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can judge from my limited knowledge in mathematics and economomics, durvexity is just some sort of derivative (calculus) of bond convexity across time. I find the lack of sources suspect as to it being an established concept, academically or otherwise. Judging from the first edit, it seems to be piece of jargon for traders, a shorter way of saying "duration of bond convexity"; Searching for that phrase (on google scholar) does yield a substantial amount of results not connected to wikipedia. Perhaps this article sould be renamed Duration and Convexity of Bonds, or merged with Bond Convexity or Bond Duration or maybe they should all be merged together..... ¨¨ victor falk 08:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps all deleted? Peridon (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I might not call this a hoax, but it's at least a non-notable neologism. Google's not god, but 0 Gnews hits, 0 Gscholar hits and 0 Gbooks hits kind of speaks for itself.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  19:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because you've never heard of it means it doesn't exist? This is a new phenomenon that merits attention. There is a plethora of Wall Street jargon that never makes the news because it is short-hand for more explicative terminology, but durvexity is a troublesome occurrence. I stand behind my research, and hope to have it published in the coming year. Bringing attention to it only serves to increase the transparency between market participants and market makers. RiccoBenardio (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to your message on my talk page (diff for future reference) and the above comment: in common with other encyclopaedias, the problem is that Wikipedia is neither a forum nor a repository for innovative ideas and research; on the contrary, it is a repository of the banal, in the sense that ideas must have been scrutinized, debated and kicked around in the outside world and it is the result of that discussion, suitably sourced, which (ideally) makes its way onto Wikpedia. So that leaves the question: is the article or the bulk of it original research? And if the term has become a buzzword on the trading floor, surely there must be some reliable source somewhere to say that, unless it is the most fleeting of neologisms. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wall street jargon, especially new jargon, deserves explanation. I wouldn't object to merging it with bond valuation, however this article has grown to be long enough for an article in its own right. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We use the term regularly around the office, traders we talk to are definitely aware of. Not sure benefit/disadvantage of merging - never quote me on wikipedia etiquit. CrissAhrens (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not eraseI work at a top international bank, yes one of the solvent ones, and this is standard terminology used in pricing option products. I think it was originally derived from Bear Stearns or Natixis. While I'm just a salesman and not an expert on the exact derivation behind it, it refers to the tweak that the top wall st. traders added to the basic black scholes option pricing theory that adjusts for the discrepencies in the black scholes model when there is severe market turmoil. We saw a similar thing happen for CDS basket option models where the pricing models shifted from using standard copia to studentT copia to compensate for non standard distribution. Both of those actually turned out to be incorrect and probably should have taken into account a similar durvexity component. Rumors are that several major banks' option desks demise was due to their lack of valuing the durvexity componant of option pricing. This sounds like a conspiracy by "whitey" to supress independant thoughtDaaron Cohen (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (Non-Admin Closure). FunPika 00:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ERepublik

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

Non-notable webgame. Only a single reliable source. Delete per WP:WEB and WP:CORP as they requitre multiple sources. Peephole (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Público.es is a print magazine, and TechCrunch has come up in a recent AfD. There's a Eurogamer article, an in-depth review at WorldsInMotion (Gamasutra), and news items at guardian.co.uk, InsideMacGames, SiliconRepublic and IGN. Overall you'e picked a bad set of games to prod. SharkD (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Covered well enough in sources. Captain panda 03:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uses sources well and well-written for a neutral perspective. Deserves an article. Ryan-McCulloch (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gökhan Töre

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

Non-notable youth player who has never made an appearance in a fully-pro league, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Originally PRODded for the same reason, but the PROD was removed by an IP user with no reason given. GiantSnowman 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest a wait till after Chelsea play their game this weekend just to see if he gets a bit of play or not. Can never be too sure. :) Govvy (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to be honest, I doubt a 17 year old is going to play a day after signing for his new club, and saying he will is a case of crystalballing. GiantSnowman 21:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Considering he was just recently signed and the fact Chelsea have the priority to either play him or not is a consideration, it's clear people are rash and haven't given a chance to see if Chelsea play him this weekend or not. I will judge my decision on what team Chelsea put out. Govvy (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, Chelsea have said he is only going to be a member of their youth team for the time being. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC confirms that Gökhan Töre is not in the squad for today's match against Liverpool. GiantSnowman 12:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the BBC also confirms that he didn't make an appearance. GiantSnowman 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:ATHLETE and also appears to fail WP:N. The article is sourced, but even the Sky Sports article is trivial coverage which doesn't appear to satisfy WP:N. Jogurney (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: seems to just about meet notability guidelines. Jofakēt (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response and how does he "just about meet notability guidelines"? GiantSnowman 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems a legit article. He has signed for one of the biggest clubs in the EPL and has also played for captained Turkey under 21's. keep the article, it would be foolish to remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.104.74 (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is a very promising player and has signed for the best club in Europe according to Uefa co-efficients. He more than meets the notability requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.186.205 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to be honest, I doubt a 17 year old is going to play a day after signing for his new club, and saying he will is a case of crystalballing. He needs to actually play to meet notability guidelines, and national youth caps do not confer notability. GiantSnowman 15:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to be honest, I doubt a 17 year old is going to play a day after signing for his new club, and saying he will is a case of crystalballing. He needs to actually play to meet notability guidelines. GiantSnowman 15:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per established consensus (see plenty of similar AFDs around) and WP:ATHLETE - being signed to a fully professional club is not enough, he must play a competitive first team game in order to be deemed notable. Claims like "he is a bright prospect for the future" or "he is going to play in the near future" are obvious violations of WP:CRYSTAL. --Angelo (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Simply doesn’t meet notability requirements (yet). MTC (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angelo. He may in fact get injured and never play for Chelsea, so we must wait until he plays a competitive full team match. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He fails WP:ATHLETE, we can't just pick athletes and say that because they are at a good club, they are automatically notable. If he never plays for the first team at Chelsea, he might be proud that he got there, but there is no need to say he is notable across the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistairjh (talk • contribs) 16:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article can easily be recreated if/when he plays football at professional level. Until he does he is not considered notable enough for an article. King of the North East 17:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A footballer who has never played football? Not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vaguely worded journalistic claims about how he is "going to play for Chelsea" notwithstanding, he has not played, so he fails WP:ATHLETE. Some editors are unhappy enough about the number of WP articles on footballers, so we certainly don't need to increase that number even further by adding kids who've never played a pro match. And, to be honest, it is extremely unlikely he will play at all this season unless the club has some sort of massive injury crisis. As pointed out above, Chelsea may be one of the top clubs in the world, but merely being on their books is not a claim to notability. Judging from this, Chelsea have played as young as 9 on their books, and we obviously aren't going to have articles on them -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Never played a pro game. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N. Recreate if and when he makes his professional debut. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failed WP:ATHLETE, no evidence of extensive coverage aside from a brief mention in one newspaper. Qwghlm (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've had a go at adding some sources to the article to help it pass WP:N. The subject however does fail WP:ATHLETE and it is hard to defend the inclusion of a 17 year old who plays in the Chelsea youth team. Not particularly notable even with the WP:RS that have been included, so delete I'm afraid. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - currently he is non-notable, signing for a big club doesn't change that, and saying he will play for them in the future is pure crystal-ballery. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Athlete. He may be a sportsman but it is rather obvious that he is not a notable sportsman. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Coverage in multiple reliable sources is a more important standard than WP:ATHLETE, and he meets it. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that fact that he was signed by Chelsea, one of the world's biggest club, meant that he got a mention on a few news websites, and doesn't really confer notability. GiantSnowman 18:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely an article requires not just multiple reliable sources, but multiple reliable sources covering the subject actually having done something noteworthy? Brooklyn Beckham got coverage in multiple reliable sources for being born, but we wouldn't give him an article because he hasn't actually achieved anything notable in his life, and neither has this kid - playing youth-level football and getting signed by a club which may or may not put him in their team in a year or two is not notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete allegedly famous for being a footballer, yet he's never played a first team game in a fully professional league. Restore if/when he does play. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve article conent or Delete - As stated, it meets WP:N, but not WP:ATH. If the article were to go more in depth, more information on his notability, then keep, if not then delete. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nearly but not quite made it footballer - fails WP:ATHLETE in that has not played yet in anything notable, signing contract is not enough. recreate if and when--ClubOranjeTalk 10:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Icewedge (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumpa Church

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

Delete or Merge:

  • no sources
  • no google results
  • perhaps merge into Legion Of Mary?
  • Keep Plenty of ghits, including at least one on JSTOR. This article has been here since 2005. Why merge into Legion of Mary? People looking for Lumpa may not know about the Mary connection. There are two external links. Possibly someone could find and post more. Peridon (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if sources are added. Jofakēt (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A Google search turned up this history of the church: [7]. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple hits in academic databases. I'll try to add them.  J L G 4 1 0 4  02:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got a source in there, from an African religion journal. The articles claims are all still pretty hard to verify without more sources. So keep, yes, but also a message asking for more and better sources should be placed on the page until it improves.  J L G 4 1 0 4  03:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is clear from the sources presented that sufficient reliable sources exist for notability. Btw, this discussion page seems to be missing the usual heading - could some gnome please fix it? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY and WP:V. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appcasting

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

This 'borderline speedy' doesn't even attempt to assert notability (seems there is none), promotes some guy and his company (both redlinks), which it also links to, and is orphaned since creation. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete No reliable sources. --Peephole (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is the most substantial reference to appcasting that I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Skullhead

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

The character had no significant apperances, and there are no secondary sources whatsoever to assert out-of-universe notability. Besides a short OR-laden description, it's nothing but an indiscriminate list of all the "good idea/bad idea" gags on Animaniacs, which is just fan information that doesn't belong anywhere on WP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Minor non-notable character used almost exclusively in a gag that is in itself minor and non-notable. Article is merely an excuse to list trivial plot details from the show. Clearly never the target of significant coverage from reliable, third party sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into a suitable article or list of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DGG, AfD is not clean-up and merging minor characters likely wouldn't have raised a whisper - plus redirects are free. -- Banjeboi 03:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per DGG and Benjiboi. I agree with Benjiboi that this AfD was unnecessary, per WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL, "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." Ikip (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DGG. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Wait, what? This character wouldn't even be important if this were a 90s Warner animation wikia, and I daresay that most of the keeps here aren't familiar with the shows in question. (Bear in mind, the entirety of his role in Tiny Toon Adventures is one single thirty-second joke.) This isn't necessary for understanding what either animated series is; this isn't even necessary for understanding the one recurring single skit in which he features. (He's a skeleton mime. That's all you need to know, and you know that as soon as you see him.) The references aren't substantially about this character; in order, they are an offhand description of the occasional one-minute skit, another offhand mention of that skit, and the contrast ratio in a DVD set. There is no possible article that would benefit from having this merged; I can't even think of an article that would benefit from mentioning him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that this AFD listed as part of WP:ARS's inclusion efforts, and shortly thereafter the bloc of keeps appeared. (I'm gratified that A Nobody at least made an effort to cite the article, even if it was just chucking '"Mr. Skullhead" review' in Google and using whatever came up.) All of them, save for RAN, all prominently display links to the Article Rescue Squadron on their user or talk pages. It may be time to review whether that project is in danger of becoming Yet Another VFD Canvassing Project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone once said, “Bear in mind that anyone who cares about "voting" can use this group's tools for themselves, regardless of how they vote. Even if this were "Inclusionists for article cleanup", that's A-OK by me; "ANYONE for Article Cleanup" is a worthy cause.” Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloc voting isn't okay. If "the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes," why are three "Keep because I say so" votes from people who advertise their ARS membership, immediately after this gets tagged with an ARS template? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF. I could say some things that would go to discredit one of those "voting" to delete, but it's about the article not each other. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least, the fact that this AFD was canvassed on an inclusionist project of no particular topic and received a bloc of "per the other guy" keep votes all from the members of that project bears mentioning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of what that editors believe the article is worthy of being rescued? Does it bear mentioning here or in other discussions that those arguing to delete have deletionist histories/leaning? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone goes canvassing them, say, on a {{ARS/Tagged}} talk page template, then yeah, it does bear mentioning. Implying that I'm a hypocrite one line after telling me to assume good faith is kind of annoying. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. Seeking help with rescuing articles is what we're all trying to do. We're here to improve the project and do what we can when we can. Deletion is a last resort after all. And of the crazy number of articles nominated, I only look for those that I seriously believe I can help improve and when I reach a certain point, I like seeing if others can help improve it as well and as such I am always happy to help anyone else improve articles when I can. It's about trying to do what can be done to save our coverage of human knowledge in the form of articles that have some potential and I believe this article has potential. Apparently a majority of others in this discussion agree. Why they agree, well, that's up to them. I have seen DGG, for example, argue to delete enough articles even in discussions where I have argued to keep that he and the others above don't just blindly argue to keep because I argued to keep or because a rescue effort has been undertaken. I recall an article being recently templated that I and some others tried to improve and DGG still wasn't persuaded to change his stance. And at the same time, even I don't try to rescue or argue to keep every single article that gets the rescue template, because I don't believe they all can be saved. Having the rescue template is NOT an automatic indication to me or I supsect others above that the article is worth defending or trying to save. I don't see Benjiboi or Ikip arguing to keep every templated article either. It's a non-issue here, because it's one of the instances where a number of us, including someone listed above who is not a member of the ARS, do believe the article is worthy keeping and nothing more than that. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassing talk pages is not helping the project, especially when it's done in a way that completely bypasses any clear record of that canvassing. Projects who don't have a clearly-stated partisan position who are simply advertising AFDs on a project page add notes to the AFD disclosing these sorts of things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing it as much different than the AfD template itself, which is of course listed on the AfD page for the day and so technically anyone who just watches AfDs could be canvassed in that manner or for example when articles are listed under specific discussions, but I'd rather believe that those coming here to comment are doing so for good faith reasons. And in any even presumably the closing admins sees the pages under discussion (after all, he or she has to when he/she closes the discussion and removes the AFD template from the article page). As such a closing admin would see that the article is templated and so too would be anyone who comments in the discussion and looks at the article before making their stance. If you think that we should have a small script note like "This article has been tagged for rescue" in the AfD as well, then, that is fine by me. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that ARS is attempting to build something of value, adding references to pages, whereas those editors who delete are all about destroying other editors contributions, unless someone else does the work. Why spend so much negative energy arguing to delete other editors contributions? At the end of the day do those delete editors feel like they have contributed anything positive to the world, to wikipedia? Ikip (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, four ARS editors apparently didn't feel the need to actually do the work of their project, but instead bloc vote after being canvassed. I like the idea of the project, but this new automagic talk page thing sucks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made an effort though, whether you agree with all of my edits or not, I did try. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I'd rather be arguing with you about the merits of sources and the potential for further sourcing (the good kind of AFD arguing) instead of having to deal with this sort of nonsense at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do still believe that there is a potential for additional sources; I know you don't think DVD commentary would work due to the length of the segment, but it might be worth checking what kind of special features are on the DVD, i.e. any making of segments, etc. I checked Amazon.com, and it appears there are at least three seasons of DVD releases, but haven't yet figured out what special features they have. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, DVD commentaries are out because there aren't any, but I can go watch the making-of stuff again, why not. It's mostly Spielburg backpatting himself and the voice actors reminiscing, so I don't have high hopes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have all three sets? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, although GI/BI didn't last until season three if I recall. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. If you do rewatch the special features, please do let us know what you find as I am not realistically going to hvae time to rent them between today and tomorrow. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as Mr. Skullhead apparently had his own show. Regarding the DVD release, Filip Vukcevic of IGN writes, "Thirteen years later and a droll skit featuring Mr. Skullhead...is still worth a chuckle."[1] Tyler Shainline contends that "Some of the best characters were the ones that never got the chance to be overused, like Mr.Skullhead, a mute skeleton whose clips were narrated by Motel 6 spokesman Tom Bodett..."[2] What these sources demonstrate is that in the first case, the character has longevity or continued relevance to the reviewer. In the second case, the character is described as among "the best" from the series which is a measure of notability. Because it receives coverage in multiple out of universe sources it meets the proposed WP:FICT. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Filip Vukcevic, "Animaniacs - Volume Two: Has this classic comedy show aged well?," IGN (January 5, 2007).
  2. ^ Tyler Shainline, "Animaniacs, Vol. 1: DVD REVIEW," DVDTOWN.COM (Jul 30, 2006).
  • That Mr. Skullhead is an unrelated character, in a pilot produced by a competing company. The entirety of what has been published on this character is two half-sentences in lengthy reviews of the series as a whole. And, as for WP:FICT, it miserably flunks the second standard, of being necessary to understand the work as a whole. He is only even given a name in Tiny Toon Adventures, the rest of the time he's just filler. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it passes them:
    Article is obviously improveable as it has improved considerably since nomination.
    That it was the title of a show means that it at worst would not be redlinked.
    It passes the first prong of WP:FICT, because it is important within the fictional work as a memorable sketch worth mentioning in reviews of the DVDs.
    It passes the second prong of WP:FICT, because it is a recurring character with multiple appearances that demonstrates the nature and type of humor used on the show and as such is cental to understanding the show.
    He is mentioned in a real world context as well that indicates cultural reception.
    One could rent the DVDs and see if there is any kind of commentary from the show makers as to the character's development.
    As such, cases could maybe be made for merging and redirecting, although because the character has appearances in two shows the article does serve a navigational function and could/should be developed further to compare/contrast these distinictive appearances, but clearly there is no compelling reason to redlink or urgent need to delete the edit history either, i.e. no benefit to the project in doing so. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The character's role in Tiny Toon Adventures is one. Single. Joke.
    You fundamentally misunderstand both the nature of the shows you're talking about and the nature of the character you're talking about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The character had multiple appearances in Animaniacs narrated by someone we have an article on. It is a memorable segment worth mentioning in reviews of the show. Those who created, work on, and read the article find it notable. Just because you do not like it does not mean it is not relevant to other members of our community. You have not presented any valid reason as to why this article must be deleted right now. It is not a hoax, not something made up in one day, not a personal attack on someone, etc. It is an element of a notable show that can be verified in secondary sources. We don't need much beyond that to justify inclusion on the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll find that "Second casino cashier" in a two-star film was played by someone who has a Wikipedia article, if it was a speaking role, and there's no rush to make Second casino cashier (The Cooler) (and thank goodness). It's an element so minor that despite devoting 1000+ words to Animaniacs, the paltry few reviews you found can't even be bothered to devote a whole sentence to it.
    I am incredulous because this is a part of Animaniacs so minor that it would only bear mention in passing in the paperless Animaniacs encyclopedia anyone can edit, let alone a general one. The fact that it also fails WP:GNG (these references are not substantial, devoting less than a sentence each to the subject) and WP:FICT (this is not necessary to understand a viewing of Animaniacs nor is it necessary to understand what Animaniacs is) are secondary. The idea that DVD commentaries might have something relevant is especially entertaining: not only do the DVD sets not have commentary (a typical situation for childrens' shows), but there'd scarcely be any time, as Good Idea/Bad Idea sketches are usually about 20 seconds long. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second casino cashier is a generic name. Mr. Skullhead is a specific names. It's apples and orangers. The reviews that I found do have sentence worth of material to the character and that was just with a quick search. This is a major aspect of the show and it is relevant here, because we are not simply a general encylopedia as we incorporate elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. It passes WP:GNG because these are reliable secondary sources and WP:FICT because it is necessary to understanding the presentation and style of Animaniacs. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator this article has been significantly improved since the article was nominated.[8] Ikip (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With the addition of references that don't even devote a full sentence to this extremely minor character, in the event that the closing administrator needed some one-sided summaries of the above discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They are nevertheless multiple references in reliable secondary sources. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But not significant coverage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they are significant, because they mention this character in a particular manner. The show has so many characters that aren't mentioned in reviews and yet this one is mentioned as memorable. To me that is significant, which is further proof of how "significant" is a subjectively interpreted word. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MichaelQSchmidt: "I'd Rather fix the damn pipe rather than complain about having wet feet." A nobody's contributions to article: 3 Blacks deletions in the article: 2 Blacks contributions: 0 Ikip (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I read both reviews, and they call out pretty much every skit that appears in that season. (When you write 1000 words about a show whose plots are generally one-sentence premises, you'll either have to cover every detail or go way, way off-topic.) Both mentions are in the context of a mention of several different skits, referenced as a group. Less than half a sentence in a review is not dealing with the subject directly and in detail, it's dealing with the subject briefly in passing.
    Ikip, applying critical thinking and confirming that sources back the cited claims is important work. Contributors to Wikipedia are also editors. Counting coup on AFD, on the other hand, is not terribly useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another source that can be used to referenced the bit in the lead about Skullhead Bonyhands and Edward Scissorhands is:
    Showtime series for `tweens' don't shy away from gay themes
    Pay-Per-View - Los Angeles Times - ProQuest Archiver - Oct 24, 1993
    In typical clever fashion, Steven Spielberg Presents Animaniacs (Thursday ... And in true Animaniac spoof-fashion, "Skullhead Bonyhands" is a sendup of Tim ...
    But it's a PPV one, so, not sure if anyone happens to have that or not? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an abstract. The title is apparently referring to an unrelated episode of a series called "Ready or Not". Dunno what if anything it says that's relevant here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The line that stood out was of course "In typical clever fashion, Steven Spielberg Presents Animaniacs (Thursday ... And in true Animaniac spoof-fashion, "Skullhead Bonyhands" is a sendup of Tim ...", which obviously could be used to cite the lead bit about that segment being a spoof of something else, which is out of universe and if from Los Angeles Times would serve as a reliable secondary source. Part of the problem with Google News is a lot of PPV or subscription results. For better or worse, this guy says, "Mr Skullhead was one of the greatest characters on Animaniacs, and, in addition to his brilliant Hamlet performance, it was his Good Idea, Bad Idea shorts that were among the more brilliant of the sho…" Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure what if any factual claims a random guy's rave on Blogspot could verify. As for the LA Times article, it would probably be a good source in a parent article rather than milking it for offhand trivial claims, but we've had this discussion before, eh? End result is we have something barely mergeable, it gets merged after the AFD, and I have another redirect on my watchlist to keep an eye on so that someone who thinks a dialogue-less character from a 20-second skit is Teh Best Thing Evar doesn't end up scratching the butter over ever more burnt toast.
    Rambling aside, if anyone could take a look at that LA Times article and let us know what it means (apparently they don't like my credit card), that'd be super. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is in two parts, the first reviewing "Ready or Not", the second reviewing the Animaniacs Halloween two-part special, made up of several episodes the last of which is the Mr. Skullhead one. The full quote of the final paragraph is "And in true Animaniac spoof-fashion, "Skullhead Bonyhands" is a sendup of Tim Burton's 'Edward Scissorhands.' For ages 2 to 8." I do object to the implication that people over the age of 8 wouldn't enjoy Animaniacs, but I do think this is a reliable source for the fact that this was a parody of the Tim Burton film. DHowell (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue seems to be that the article likely should have been proposed for merger rather than yet another AfD removing the content altogether. Many characters in a list of characters indeed grow into having their own articles. AfD simply isn't the best venue for this effort. I suggest you let the AfD run it's course and simply post to merge the content into an appropriate parent or list article. -- Banjeboi 04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending Keep: I believe the new references in the reception section answer the nom's notability concerns. I myself will be more than happy to give it a "keep" vote if someone either sources or removes the stuff in the lead. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've referenced the origin from Elmyra's bow in Tiny Toon Adventures in the article. Potential merges to List of characters in Animaniacs or elsewhere should be discussed on the article's talk page. And AMIB is simply incorrect in saying that this "the entirety of his role in Tiny Toon Adventures is one single thirty-second joke." It was actually a segment in two TTA episodes, in addition to several thirty-second jokes plus a full-length episode and several more appearances in Animaniacs. DHowell (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, I've changed my !vote. Also a FU pic couldn't hurt either. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of the Red Dragon

Legend of the Red Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources establishing notability, delete as per WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Tagged with notability tag since November 2008. --Peephole (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm withdrawing the nomination, inclusion criteria seem to have been met. --Peephole (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB does not apply, as LORD is not web-specific content. --Hawke666 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then. WP:CORP. --Peephole (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP:CORP applies either. This is a software product, not a company or organization. Deletition could only come from lack of general notability, WP:NOTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyMM (talk • contribs) 10:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As for notability, The reliable web site MobyGames has : "In addition to being arguably the most popular BBS door game ever, LORD earned the distinction of being awarded Clark Development Co.'s (PCBoard) "Door of the Year" award for 1995. You can see this humble plaque on Robinson Technologies' site at http://www.rtsoft.com/graphics/l-award.gif" [9].DGG (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think that award might sound more impressive than it is. Clark Development Corporation was the developer of PCBoard (BBS system). So this might just be a case of a company giving an award to someone for using their product. --Peephole (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would be prepared to say that the notability is there from the first sentence in my quote without even the award. DGG (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh.. unless LORD's creator ran a PCBoard BBS, that is actually kind of backwards. The game did not use BBS software. BBS software (PCBoard, Wildcat, RemoteAccess, etc, etc) of any maker used the game (and other door games). Outsider80 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Peephole, LORD was functioning as kind of plug-in for PCBoard BBS software. So you can look at this award as a "best plug-in award", or something like that.--RockyMM (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP KEEP KEEP!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.138.140.55 (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: user provides no reason behind said rationale. MuZemike 16:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a notable game from the BBS days. Brief mentions in a book, three scholarly papers, a GameSetWatch interview and GameTunnel. A full article in The Escapist, a non-trivial mention on Gamasutra and a nice review on Destructoid (though this last one doesn't count for anything since it's a user blog). I'm surprised there's not more :(. SharkD (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The other sources don't seem significant enough or reliable (student papers) but The Escapist and Gamasutra ones seem ok. I'll withdraw the afd.--Peephole (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SharkD  The Steve  13:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep possibly most famous door game of the BBS era, before WWW was a household name. Outsider80 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SharkD and DGG established notability of LORD. Historical moment of LORD makes it poorly refenced on the web, but it was pretty much well known in BBS community. Not saying that LORD's notability is temporary. There are still enough references about it to make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --RockyMM (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Lee

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

I came across this as a "Random article" and set about improving it. However, I suspect that this actually a completely non-notable guitarist who is a member of completely non-notable band (Wiki red link) who has a completely non-notable girlfriend (also a Wiki red link). Google search provides nothing other than Wikipedia and a link to Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 19:13, 30 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 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Regendi

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

This is evidently a "political browser-based game and economic simulation" (based on the article), and the question is whether it currently meets notability guidelines. This article was previously deleted at AfD in January 2008 for lack of sourcing to verify notability. It has since been created several times and speedily deleted under this name and the similar Ars regendi. Additional sourcing is now present which may invite reassessment, making it ineligible for deletion under WP:CSD#G4 (for which it was tagged). This nomination is procedural, as I have no basis to judge the German sources in terms of reliability. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Additional sourcing could possibly bring the article to OGame level. Elm-39 - T/C 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First let me say, that it is not true, that the article "has since been created several times" after the first deletion. Quite contrary, one has patiently waited for about one year until the conditions everybody agreed upon in the first deletion discussion have been fulfilled. That means: independent notable sources like the PC Games, and until a native English speaker (ystradband) decided to write the article. Besides: is notability only a question of the popularity of the sources? Does it not matter at all, what the issue of the article is? An educational game which encourages to get more familiar with politics and economics, and cultivates intercultural exchange of ideas: is that as unimportant (or not notable) as those uncountable websites and games which have less famous sources and deal only with funny or stupid things? Give me one day and I'll find 30 articles here that have weaker references AND - in my oppinion - completely irrelevant matters. Cheers and sorry for my bad English. Malone70 (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been deleted twice since, as the deletion log attests. (But I was mistaken in thinking it had been deleted again under this title as well; it had only been deleted once following AfD.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete per WP:WEB as no reliable and significant coverage present. --Peephole (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. No references from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:V. All references are self-published, blogs, or trivial side mentions, nothing significant. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "No references from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is simply not true. "trivial side mentions" neither true: they are all particular and independent articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malone70 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - PC Action is a print magazine, so it's certainly reliable, but the coverage is not extensive. Report Die Gruenen seems to be a blog for the Green Party in Germany. The PC Games review is simply a re-print of the PC Action article. Online Game Magazine seems to be just a blog, as does World of Simulation. SharkD (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability in terms of cited sources is on a par with Ogame and far exceeds a large proportion of accepted articles on Wikepedia. As Wikipedia also contains a page that categorises Government simulation games, this article broadens the knowledge of those interested in learning about politics and economics in this way and therefore benefits the encyclopedic nature of the site. Ystradband (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ogame is so marginally notable that it's been listed for AfD 3 times now. Besides, other stuff exists is no reason to keep an article. Notability and verifiability are inclusion criteria on Wikipedia, and require multiple references from reliable sources. The sources in here are blogs, press releases, and trivial mentions. This could be the most popular game on the planet, but if there are no lengthy articles from high-quality sources, there should be no article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Please could you _finally_ stop telling the untruth? There is no press release between the sources! When you emphasize verifiability so much, then stand to the rules yourself. Please edit those sections which are not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malone70 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I swear that I saw a press release in there, but as I can't find it now, I've edited my comment. The suggestion to delete still stands. Also, please remember to sign you comments with 4 tildes (~~~~). Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Sure, sorry :) Malone70 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources don't rise to the level of meeting WP:WEB - MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:WEB, woefully inadequate sources are a combination of trivial mentions which impart nothing that the game's own documentation won't and unusable materials. Ref #1 is a personal blog with no indication of why the writer's opinion is more reliable than any random net user. As sod's law would have it, this is the only piece of any substance. Refs #2 and #7 are identical text, and a very short description of the game. Ref #3 is a 7-sentence description which is no more a review than an apple pie, it resembles a product description from Big Fish Games. Ref #4 is kind of staggering in the right direction but there's hardly anything there once you lift out yet another basic description of the game. #5 is the Alexa ranking and #6 is just a chunk of copied text from the game's website ending with "It looks pretty good. It says “Basic” membership is free, although I couldn’t find any reference to a “premium” service on the site." - exactly how does that establish notability? Sorry but the whole point of secondary sources is to analyze the game, which these aren't doing, and until that changes it can be nothing more than a product listing which is not what WP is for. Someoneanother 20:40, 31 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) 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Valenti

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

Wikipedia:Notability (people) advises that a person meets the notability threshold if she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of her. I'm not sure that Valenti is the subject of any of the cited sources in this article. There are reviews of her book (and a Q&A with her qua the book's author), the subject of which is the book, not its author. There are articles written by her, but while wags might suggest she is their subject, they are not intellectually independent. That seems to leave WP:CREATIVE, and so far as I can see, none of its tests appear to be met either. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ambivalent but leaning towards weak keep. WP:BIO says "multiple, independent sources"; I can find one (the Guardian, a British national newspaper) that has chosen to publish an article about her. It's also by her, as Simon Dodd says. Overall I think she's marginal on notability. Having said that, while I'm mindful of WP:GOOGLE, 139,000 google hits (most or all of which are about this Jessica Valenti) is indicative of a relatively strong web presence. Thus "Jessica Valenti" strikes me as a likely search term on Wikipedia, which in turn suggests to me that we should think fairly hard before deleting.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't googling a name without quotation marks overinclusive, producing get hits that include just "Jessica" and just "Valenti," or the two used independently of one another? Googling with quotation marks around the name brings back only 49,000 results ([10]). Could you link to the Guardian article you found? I see columns that she's written for the Grauniad, but not a column about her.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's this one: [11]. I think it's essentially about her (in the sense that it's about her book and her world view). This may make me a "wag".  :-)--S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the byline. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I acknowledged that above. I think it's by her and essentially about her.  :-) --S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) -- (later) -- I should clarify that, I think. What's interesting to me is that the Guardian has given her voice on something other than the letters page.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I missed the note in your comment abouve about it having been self-penned. Apologies.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you want sources specifically about Valenti, I only needed about 30 seconds to find interviews in Salon, New York magazine, and The Colbert Report. There's probably more, too, but that was enough to convince me. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also confused as to why an author shouldn't talk about their own work. Your job is a big part of your life, y'know? If I were being interviewed by somebody, we'd probably spend a fair bit of time on my career... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused, also. Who said she couldn't talk about her work? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Valenti is a major figure to young feminists. Feministing is one of the biggest liberal blogs out there, and she has had an extensive amount of media coverage. I just added several sources about Valenti specifically. To be frank, I'm very surprised this was nominated. Valenti has not lacked for media coverage. RMJ (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's sufficient media coverage within the scope of WP:BIO, then fair enough - I do just want to address the point that because Feministing is notable (I assume that it is), that's an argument against this nomination, though. One of the biggest blogs on the right is RedState, but that doesn't bootstrap its founders and principals Erick Erickson or Mike Krempasky into being independently notable. Similarly, Protein Wisdom is notable enough to be included, but its equivalent to Valenti, Jeff Goldstein isn't (that link is a redirect to the PW article), and for a somewhat amusing demonstration that the knife cuts both ways, cf. Atrios (blogger is notable) with Eschaton (his blog is not independently notable). Is contributing to something that is notable usually thought an independent basis for notability? Certainly she may have done other things to establish notability, and I don't doubt your word on the point, but I don't buy that simply founding and writing for a blog by itself meets the notability threshold.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valenti's career has been more of a boon to Feministing than the other way around - the blog didn't even have a page until a few days ago (I created it). I actually had a difficult time finding articles that talked about Feministing as much as Valenti. She's published a few different books that have been well-covered by the media.
Have you looked at my new references? I include links to articles on her and her work from the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and Gothamist. I think they do a great deal to establish that she (and her work independent of Feministing as much as with the blog) are notable. The article has six independent sources (NYT, Huffington Post, Colbert Report, Salon, AlterNet, NYMag) that significantly cover both her and her work directly and in detail.
I'm a little wary of your arguments regarding other blog editors, but I see where you're coming from. However, with Protein Wisdom, Goldstein does not contribute as widely as Valenti. Valenti's status at Feministing is part of a collaborative effort, and Valenti has a great deal of other contributions: books, articles and media appearances. I think that a better analogy is Ana Marie Cox. Cox was also the founding editor of a widely known blog,[ Wonkette, who grew from her success there to further notable projects. RMJ (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Per WP:BIO, she "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her specific field," her expertise being feminist theory, young feminists and feminist blogging; and per WP:CREATIVE, she is "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by her peers." She writes opinion pieces for notable publications AlterNet, Salon.com, and The Guardian, which attests to her notability. She is frequently quoted in notable publications in articles about feminism and blogging (and feminist blogging), see 'Miranda complex' hits US women, Casting doubts about Dowd on fall of feminism, NOW at 40: What's left to do?, At a computer near you, 'Mommy makeover' book draws fire from feminists, What we need is an f-word revolution, Op-Ed Columnist: A Virginal Goth Girl, Wal-Mart Yanks Pink 'Credit Card' Panties Off Racks, The 'Online estrogen revolution', and many more, found from a simple Google news search. She has attracted the attention of notable critics Glenn Sacks and the National Review Online. She has had speaking engagements at various colleges and universities - Lecture at Drury University, Carol Ortman Perkins Lectureship: Jessica Valenti, Lecture at Simmons College, and keynote speaker for the College's 2009 Women's Month celebrations, and others. She's been profiled in the New York Times and The Gothamist. And I think that all of the various interviews she's done about her books also help to prove notability - I think that saying that she isn't the subject of these interviews is kind of splitting hairs. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the others. As the old adage goes, do your research then start making claims about notability, or you'll look like a git. Rebecca (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Comment immediately above contains excellent advice. Geo Swan (talk) 07:16, 31 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 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger 60's rock band

AfDs for this article:
Hunger 60's rock band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Well, it says that the only viable source is myspace. Dunno. Elm-39 - T/C 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything in the article that passes WP:MUSIC; their only credits seem through supporting other bands (WP:NOTINHERITED). If the article is to be believed, I'm sure this band must have had some coverage. Cycle~ (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no independent 3rd party notability. Google is mostly showing up a vampire movie which starred David Bowie WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete searching shows nothing that would establish notability per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 10:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources writing about the band, and if the article is to be believed, they never made it big before breaking up -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. FunPika 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Gemological Institute

International Gemological Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is heavy on POV, opinions, and forward looking statements that are not encyclopedic. Smells like advert. Emana (Talk) 17:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - It is full of POV, but it seems notable enough, needs cleanup. Res2216firestar 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; certainly a notable body with sources that meet WP:ORG. I have cleaned out or tagged the worst of the POV though it still reads a bit spammy. Smile a While (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the sources are ad-papers, not news sources. Any statement in an ad does not meet WP:RS unless it is a direct quote. These sources have been removed before, but re-submitted by single purpose accounts. Please see talk section for unreliable sources.--Emana (Talk) 20:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - still a bit spammy, but getting better. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- Article is has references and a further reading section. The Spam issue can be resolved by editing, there is no deadline. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references are not easily verifiable by the public. Many of the articles in the further reading section does not directly concern IGI and many mention the unverifiable references as having connections with IGI - therefore, creating a firestorm of looped hits for the advertisers. --Emana (Talk) 21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yaki Kadafi

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

Unimportant individual; barely even an article, no reliable sources, and overall fails WP:MUSIC. Just because he was a member of Outlawz for a short time it does not mean he is notable. There really is no significance of notability here. Period. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to contribute to this discussion; but wanted to say that I find it hard to believe that Kadafi's wiki entry is being considered for deletion: a very popular rapper who worked extensively alongside one of the greatest rappers who ever lived; and who was one of the sole witnesses in the murder of that rapper; and who then went on to die in mysterious circumstances himself two months to the day later???

Yaki Kadafi a member of the outlawz and a close friend of Tupac and a founding member of the outlawz. And his wiki entry is pending deletion? If it's gonna be like that then you can take 80% of the pointless entries on Wikipedia. I believe Yaki Kadafi has a rightful place on Wikipedia and he has contributed alot to some of Tupacs work. People would like to know more information of Tupacs close friend & founding member of the Outlawz. Its unbelievable that this is even considered to be debated. As said above people would like to know more about Yaki Kadafi and what relationship he had with 2pac.

Strange person to cite as not notable enough - this entry should certainly NOT be deleted.--AthenaM (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources as required for biographies of living persons. JBsupreme (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn (and therefore keep) (non-admin closure) 88.234.217.196 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jape (software)

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

A nonnotable piece of software tagged so for over year now, but the content basically unchanged since its creation in 2006. - 7-bubёn >t 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • changed to keep. After over a year of being warned and only after an imminent threat of deletion someone finally bothered to add a proof of notability. - 7-bubёn >t 02:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. A question may arise about my due diligence in nominating for deletion. Well, I did google for "jape + 'proof assistaant'" -nothing of puny 321 google hits caught my eye. How the heck could I have known to search for "computer-assisted logic teaching"? - 7-bubёn >t 02:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, plus it reads like an ad. Res2216firestar 18:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Shouldn't this be closed as withdrawn by nominator?  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  07:09, 31 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) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S Gundam

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

No third-party references or apparent notability evident from the article. Another member of the very large Gundam walled garden. Most of the content appears to be original research. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep/ cleanup. Some text is based on designer interview. Other sources outside the fictional universe are also given. Part of a notable game, so let kids have fun. A good school for writing wikipedia articles on "real-life" topics when kids grow up. - 7-bubёn >t 17:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I am wondering why don't the two magazine source(Newtype and Model World) and the third party shop count as third party source. Another good example of nom not being familiar with sources before nominating. MythSearchertalk 19:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add {{copyedit}} - I think this is a notable enough topic. Gundam may be contained within a overly large universe, but it would seem that each element has enough plot complexity to be in themselves notable. —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 20:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it can be documented from the game itself, verifiability is met. And the magazine sources given do show Notability. DGG (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list of Universal Century Gundam mecha and the novel article Gundam Sentinel. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequately sourced and referenced. Jtrainor (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mythsearcher. There's plenty of bad Gundam articles out there to AfD, but this isn't one of them. MalikCarr (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources (some of them not explicitly cited) do show some independent notability. Cleanup issues are cleanup issues, not cause for deletion. Keep. A merge to a list of Universal Century Gundam mecha would not be out of order, but that would be better handled as a concerted effort, not piecemeal by AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Editors who worked on this articles did some homeworks but it still need more references and citations but it way better than a lot of gundams articles. Merge is out of question as gundam list is right now in no shape for merge. For Afd, have fun with the royal battle of WP:FICT. KrebMarkt 07:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes the proposal at WP:FICT. JulesH (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SNOW. And as far as I can tell from Google searches, the article is not a hoax and concerns a popular subject. Like every article, it should be better referenced, but it appears to have potential. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motor maintenance

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Automobile repair
Motor maintenance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a HOWTO guide Mayalld (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How-to. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What does [12] refer to? Does that mean how-to pages are allowed on Wikipedia? Antivenin 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that this refers to pages in the Wikipedia namespace, not the article namespace. The creation of howto pages that tell people how to do things in wikipedia, in the wikipedia namespace is allowed. The creation of howto articles in the article space isn't. Mayalld (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ah yes. I see what you're talking about. Thanks for the reply! Antivenin 16:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent cut and paste from instruction manual without any thought. It is not even clear to which motors it is applied. BTW, an additional reason to delete is possible copyright violation. - 7-bubёn >t 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Mayalld. Also, the non-specificity of the content would seem to be more harmful than helpful in some cases—for instance, it would be nice to know the type of motor to which the article is referring. Is this Internal combustion engine maintenance? DC electric motor maintenance? Trolling motor maintenance? Also, if the article is to be kept, it would need a {{copyedit}} inclusion as the article reads like a process diagram. —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 21:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Given the other problems, doesn't even seem to be worth saving at Wikibooks. Anaxial (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a misplaced how-to. Alexius08 (talk) 02:39, 31 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 A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gillespie Godfrey Boyd

Gillespie Godfrey Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hagiographical article about someone's relative who served in WWII. Sounds like a good guy but he does not seem to have been unusually distinguished. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N and there are also COI issues andy (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- A Google search [13] shows Gillespie Godfrey Boyd in not notable. The only mention I can see of him is in this obituary. [14] And even then, it's an indirect reference. (Long story short: fails WP:N) Antivenin 16:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Certainly fails WP:N, and arguably a candidate for speedy deletion as there's no assertion of sufficient notability to prevent it. A shame when so much work has been put in, but there it is. Karenjc 17:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonnotable, no external sources beyond personal paperwork. - 7-bubёn >t 17:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - please see this comment by the author. andy (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 30 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 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Glenn Holt

Daniel Glenn Holt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete as a WP:HOAX biography Mayalld (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be a hoax, no evidence that the company mentioned in the article exists. —Snigbrook 15:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Delete - There isn't a shred of evidence that this company exists/ever existed. A hoax in my opinion. Antivenin 16:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest Snowball Delete. The cited references are fake. The contributor is aware of this vote, yet instead of addressing the concern they just remove the deletion notice. - 7-bubёn >t 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:HOAX. Having the author see the notice and delete it also doesn't help to rectify the article status. —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 21:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax, no sign that the company exists. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The information is both inconsistant and randomly changing. Besides, even if the company/person did exist, it wouldn't meet notability guidelines. LSD (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jobs in Nigeria

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

Unencyclopedic, WP:ESSAY, likely WP:OR CultureDrone (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete No nontrivial information. One may substitute the word "Nigeria" for "Zamunda" with no loss of meaning. - 7-bubёn >t 17:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and redirectto Employment in Nigeria. Needs to be rewritten in the vein of Employment in Hong Kong, but I believe the subject is notable, if very poorly written and sourced. SMSpivey (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the subject of employment in one of the world's fastest growing economies, with about 150 million inhabitants, would be pretty self-evidently notable, this article contains nothing worth salvaging. This is obvious spam for the organisation linked to in the references. It probably merits a WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion, but since it's been brought to AfD we might as well continue the process and get this deleted by a proper concensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 31 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 Deleted by DGG - procedural close. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Atrocities

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

This article seems to exist only as an attack. Can it be speedied? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G10: Attack Page. Also fails WP:NPOV.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. In principle, I agree with S Marshall that an article can gather together under one roof several events that, by themselves, are notable, NPOV, and non-attacking, and yet, by their selection and assembly, create an article amounting to an attack page for purposes of WP:CSD 10 (or a WP:SYN violation). Such constructions are not necessarily so, however; for example, there is also a page German atrocities, redirecting to German war crimes. I have no idea which side of the line the nom'd article falls, frankly, and at the risk of making a WP:WAX faux pas, is there a difference between this article and that article other than the POV problems with the nominated article? If not, I would think the remedy would ordinarily be improvement rather than deletion.
On the other hand, WP:ATP directs that "[i]f the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place." There isn't a good version to revert to, but I can't imagine what a stub would say - "Poland has done some bad things in the past"? - so that solution isn't a perfect fit, either.
All told, I think the best remedy is that the content be merged into History of Poland - the editors of which are better-placed than I am to evaluate its accuracy, balance, and weighting - and/or the nom'd article be redirected thereto. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--my concern is to avoid giving offence, so if Simon Dodd's suggestion is followed, I would recommend the article in question be userfied or otherwise blanked from the main Wikipedia space while the merge is in progress.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SYN-based attack article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This is a G10 hate page consisting of snippets copy-pasted from other articles with some empty refs for example in Russian to what looks like a nationalist portal such as this one, or this one, which doesn’t support anything at all. A bad case of WP:POINT – which the anonymous user attempted to hotlink from the Poland article.[15] --Poeticbent talk 19:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bunch of "bolonies". Not worth any comment.--Jacurek (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This is just a hate article, I'm sure any country you care to name has done something that someone somewhere would call atrocious. La Kiwi 19:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcollis (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete and I just did exactly that. If somebody wants to do a proper summary article on some specific parts of this it might just conceivably be defensible as Simon Dodd says, but this is a hopeless biased broad-based attack. DGG (talk) 20:33, 30 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. GbT/c 09:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Roxanne

Nina Roxanne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete non-notable biography Mayalld (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of notability. FlyingToaster 15:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:SNOW.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should probably be deleted, but you can't snowball close something after only two responses at the AFD. Keep your pants on, yo. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a copyvio of http://thelovepage.com/nina_roxanne/ and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sucden

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

Article about non-notable company with no third-party reference sources since July 2008, failing to satisfy the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --DAJF (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I like to assume good faith, but I can't believe that the nominator made any effort whatsoever to check for sources. When I removed the prod tag from this I pointed out that thousands of reliable sources are available from Google News archive and Google Books searches. If the nominator is concerned about references not being in the article the answer is to add some of these, not to nominate the article for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is this news article about them, and a google book search shows them being well-established with a "triumphant swap of sugar between Cuba and the USSR." [16]. There a lot more entries but the two shown are sufficient to demontrate notability and availability of sources.-- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided clearly indicates that this company is notable. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-creativity

E-creativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism seemingly coined by the article author. The conference mentioned is also organised by the author. Prod tried and removed by author. Blowdart | talk 15:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable neologism and advertising puffery verging on outright complete, total and utter bollocks. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - E-creativity seems a perfectly plausible idea/concept to me. I don't see how it comes under WP:BOLLOCKS. Antivenin 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - protologism which appears to be used in the sense indicated by the article on only one website. Google brings up a number of people using it to mean "creative things to do with the internet" as well, but I don't think that;s solid enough to warrant an article either. Artw (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AUTHOR COMMENT: I think "creative things to do with the internet" (above) falls very comfortably into the catchall definition that I have proposed, thereby only strengthening my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankarbaba (talk • contribs) 04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Desr author, that's the point. The term is a vaugely defined catchall that no-one but you is using. Please see WP:NEO for why this is likely to lead to deletion. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Comment - Okay Alex. So, why not look to finnesse the definition, instead of just deleting the entry. After all, isn't that how this sytem is supposed to work? And, the term is in any case finding, and will further find, increasing usage into the future, whether this way or that. Wot say? Bollocks as yummy prarie oysters, or as just danglers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankarbaba (talk • contribs) 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - More important than its extreme nebulousness is the word's complete lack of secondary usage. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a protologism -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no "there" there, as Michael Jackson's nose surgeon said.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emotions Education

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

More unencyclopaedic self-promotion from the editor who brought us Crime Education(AfD) and Spiritual Education‎(AfD). Only non-self-source doesn't even mention the term. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not encyclopaedic. This editor is just spamming his own website. TeapotgeorgeTalk 19:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a world leader in this field and other "educations" I have only my own sources to refer to. If the people complaining about this have other sources they should add them instead of accusing me of spamming. Emotions education is refered to loosely in talks and papers without beiung defined. Read Goleman again and he does refer to it. Bill robb (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = A Google search suggests that this will not be verifiable. The fact that the only references are to Robb's website (the book is marked as not having the reference that's expected) also suggests that this is self-promotion, although that's not a good reason to delete - it's just gravy on top of the nonverifiability. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Servers

Delete not notable! (nominated 14:39, 29 January 2009 by User:Elfzombie, listed at afd by 13:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I feel kind-of responsible for this one; another machinima was at AFD recently and somebody used the argument that we don't have an article about this film as a reason to delete it, and I suggested creating this one... Anyway. This film was screened and nominated for an award at the 2008 Machinima Filmfest[17][18] (which is a weakly-notable film festival: [19][20][21]), which suggests notability. JulesH (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 07:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to Wikipedia:Notability (web), it needs to have won the award, as opposed to simply being a nominee. I've googled "War of The Servers" and found nothing of note (just trivial mentions, video sharing sites, forums and non-notable blogs). Of the two independent links in the article, The destructoid link is the only seemingly reliable source, but just borders on significant coverage (a few paragraphs). The Stupid Evil Bastard link is mostly a copy-paste of the blurb. And before someone brings it up, it is listed on the Jeff Wayne's TWOTW site under user-made content [22], but that's just a listing of many pieces of content.--Drat (Talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep was nominated for Best Long Format Film and Best Direction in the 2008 Machinima Filmfest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullfish111 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes nominated. It didn't win the awards. And again, have any reliable sources, independent of the subject, written about it significantly?--Drat (Talk) 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • — Bullfish111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — TKD::Talk 11:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Bullfish111 (talk · contribs) and 80.44.254.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the same, per this edit: [23]. I've warned the user. — TKD::Talk 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drat. The Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences article is currently where its sanctioned machinima film festivals are covered (although not very well, and 2008 isn't yet listed). Perhaps a brief blurb on War of the Servers would be appropriate in the context of the film festival there, when someone creates a section on it. Right now, there's not anything that could be directly merged without the section on the film festival itself. — TKD::Talk 11:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dou (Alexandra Burke)

Dou (Alexandra Burke) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this is purportedly about a second album, before the first is released. WP:CRYSTAL applies. AndrewHowse (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article is entirely incorrect. Dynablaster (talk) 17:57, 31 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 withdrawn. I have renamed and rewritten the article according to the good suggestions below. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cgk733

Cgk733 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article describes scientific work that has been revealed to be fraudulent. The paper this article is based upon, titled "Small molecule–based reversible reprogramming of cellular lifespan", has been retracted in full by the authors. The authors were suspended from the academic institution where they worked. The only accurate statement currently in the article is "the entire work behind the discovery of this compound was called into question and then found to be falsified." Perhaps there is an article to be written about the fraud itself, but this article about the non-existent chemical compound "Cgk733" should be deleted.-- Ed (Edgar181) 13:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Is this a notable hoax? If so, keep and re-write. If not, delete. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fraud was mentioned at a few online science news sites and blogs, but that's about it as far as I can tell, so it probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of notable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub and keep. Regardless of how much attention this got, it looks like a notable hoax. Remarkable claims about this alleged compound are published in an academic source, and then retracted entirely. That to me sounds like significant coverage in reliable sources, so this should keep even if not much attention were paid to the hoax. Google News reveals a host of sources, many of which are apparently in Korean or Chinese, about the substance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-write Since the compound was published in reliable, third party sources THEN found to be false, the hoax is notable and needs to be covered. I suggest moving to "Cgk733 (hoax)" and making Cgk733 a redirect, then focusing more on the fact that it was falsified in the article. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move, and rewrite per above. No one here is arguing that its real, but the fact that it gained some notability BEFORE being revealed as a hoax should be covered here. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite, but don't move. Notable hoax, but I rather doubt that there's another Cgk733, so there's no need to disambiguate. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-write to describe the true story. As others have said, if the discovery itself is fake, the fact that there was a (fraudulent) claim about it isn't. Anaxial (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all info and refs already in article, just needs some polishing. You can be sure that the compound has been synthesized since (see retraction). Cacycle (talk) 04:19, 31 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 13:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Buss

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

Spammy piece about a non-notable financial advisor. Only 88 ghits none of which are particularly exciting, no evidence of notability in the article and totally irrelevant references - nothing to support a claim of notability. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:VER andy (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as WP:RESUME with entirely unsourced claims. Only citation is a 10-minute interview with Nouriel Roubini, which doesn't mention Buss. No evidence of notability; no sources for the Buss info. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentI declined a previous prod on the article for being promotional--so it was, but I removed the promotional part. The author very unwisely has replaced most of it, using the article as a springboard for his stock market predictions.I have no real opinion about the notability. But the surest way to get unfavorable attention to an article is to insist on adding spam. DGG (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Written by SPA and reeks of self promotion. Drop kick this article right off Wikipedia (see author name). — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be civil. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't confuse humour with incivility. Wrongly accusing a fellow editor of incivility is itself not civil (oh dear, have I just done that myself?). Anyway, I thought it was quite amusing :) andy (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, I think I read too quickly the first time and misread it as "drop kick this author off Wikipedia." Sorry RH. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a self-promotion by an user of a single-purpose account who assumed ownership of the article. Alexius08 (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion isn't punitive. The page should be deleted because there are apparently no sources about Mr. Buss. Wp:auto, wp:own and wp:spa are irrelevant here. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not totally irrelevant - they add force to the case for deletion because autobiography is strongly discouraged. And lack of sources isn't necessarily a death blow to an article - it can always be fixed. You have to look at things in the round. Alexius08's comments are valid but not as strong as they could be. andy (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If no sources about him can be found, the article is necessarily unfixable (and conversely). 160.39.213.152 (talk) 13:17, 31 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 deleted per WP:CSD#G1 Pedro :  Chat  14:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo hancock

Buffalo hancock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete as a pretty bizzare WP:HOAX Mayalld (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax/disruption. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Delete. Stream-of-consciousness hoax. Possible G3 speedy as "blatant and obvious misinformation." Deor (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nonsense article from a vandalism-only account. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. andy (talk) 14:28, 30 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 13:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Education

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

non encyclopaedic self promotion TeapotgeorgeTalk 12:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: seems to simply be an attempt to draw attention to the author's own WP:SELFPUB website. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as thinly-veiled spam, not to mention opinion-pushing. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per AlexTiefling. What an astonishing coincidence that the only reference to this concept is at the valueseducation website! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of complaining improve the srticle - that is if you can? It seems all your contributions are knocking down those who want to make a genuine contriubution. Bill robb (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - spam with no redeeming value. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Education

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

Non encyclopaedic self promotion TeapotgeorgeTalk 12:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A legitimate begining to an entry which wil get better with other contributions. Bill robb (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky Pop

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

To quote the PROD that didn't make 5 days: "a pointless, not commonly used genre name that does not need its own article even if it does exist. A few articles and such about it but they're mostly about specific club nights. No evidence this has any chance of becoming a common or in any way useful term." I couldn't agree more. Delete.    SIS  12:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The majority of Google hits for this are related to a club night rather than a specific genre or movement.[24],[25], even most of this guardian article. It may have popped up every now and then as a term because of the club night/tour and bands but genres or "movements" coined by artists and promoters themselves are hardly worthy of articles. Unless they start being used all over the place like gothic which I think stemmed from a Joy Division press release or something like that. An article on the promoter, club night or tour might work but I'm not sure that was what is being attempted in the article. I can already see someone arguing that wonky pop exists because it has a Wikipedia article and we should avoid this sort of thing. Jellypuzzle | Talk 12:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sloppily written advert masquerading as a "music and lifestyle movement". The existence of a "official website" EL is clue enough to what is going on here. How does a "music and lifestyle movement" get an "official" website? The paltry references only go to show that the term is "owned" by a band promoter. There might, just, be an argument for the term "wonky pop" being a musical genre, but I think it would require better cites and a much clearer definition. No indication that either will be forthcoming. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all thank you for notifying me of the deletion request. Something that is mentioned by the BBC,The Guardian and The Independent is notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion. Most of the above are arguments as to why these sources should not have written articles about Wonky Pop. You are entitled to that opinion of course but you can not change the fact they did what they did. Thirty plus years ago punk started as as a gorilla marketing campaign of sorts but people felt it was also something legitimate. So instead of cursing on a talk show and wearing ripped tee shirts with a confrontational statements these people use websites and club nights. I fail to see the difference. I am not at all saying that Wonky Pop has risen close to the level of punk the article is much shorter then the punk article as it should be. As for the future web based viral campaigns have worked but I really do not have a clue as to what the future will bring. I do think that deleting an article based on the assumption that the Wonky Pop will not become widely known borders on violating WP:FUTURE and original research. I do not think something has to be known all over the place to merit Wikipedia inclusion there are a lot of Wikipedia articles on "cult" phenomena As for changing the tone of the article that is a topic for the talk page if the article is not deleted. Edkollin (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This appears to be a neologism coined by Mika's manager Ian Watt last year. Since when were music genre names copyrighted? "punk rock" isn't copyrighted but apparently "wonky pop" is (It looks as though Watt is preventing any other artists from using that name, other than for his own artists, thus limiting its use). JamesBurns (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: If they are copywrited the BBC ignored the issue and described Florence and the Machine as Wonky Pop. Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think Florence and The Machine have been part of their club nights. But even if I am wrong it does not matter. The article should not be deleted because editors are offended by the means the term got its name into 3 reliable sources all that matters on the issue of Wikipedia inclusion inclusions that these news organizations put them there. Edkollin (talk)
        • Comment: the article is misleading them claiming to be music and lifestyle movement. The neologism is being used to promote only a handful of bands under Watt. JamesBurns (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there seems to be more of a desire to rewrite the article as music genre then a lifestyle more then a desire to delete article. I will rewrite it as a music genre only. Also if article is to stay editing needs to be limited to users as there has been continuous vandalism. Edkollin (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In trying to revert the massive vandalism it is possible I deleted legitimate edits by users. Apologies ahead of time. Feel free to renter edits. Edkollin (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The term, a neologism, is quite regularly used in the Guardian and by the BBC. Contrary to discussions above, the term is nothing to do with a night club. Our objective should be to improve the article, not delete it. If we deleted every article that needed work we wouldn't be left with much! Millstream3 (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted CSD G3 hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerpuff Girls (arcade game)

AfDs for this article:
The Powerpuff Girls (arcade game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yeah, it is a poorly written example of an article what with all the weasel terms but it isn't wrong in it having any sources to suggest it even exists. Not much has changed since the last nom for the article back in 2005 so fail on WP:V, WP:N and a couple others. treelo radda 11:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing of any real use in this article, it basically says that no-one knows who made it, when it was made, or if it even ever existed. La Kiwi 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcollis (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. MBisanz talk 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5th Studio Album

5th Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete unreleased album, with no reliable sources per WP:CRYSTAL. Forthcoming album is already adequately covered on the band's page Mayalld (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article's only source is the band's Myspace page. Although Killswitch Engage is a notable band, a post on their myspace page does not in my mind constitute verification in multiple, reliable, independant sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources). My other problem is that the artcle title is not appropriately descriptive: the first question to mind was "whose fifth studio album?" I have no problems about the article being recreated at a later point, at the album's correct title, when there are more sources and more information available. -- saberwyn 11:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"verification in multiple, reliable, independant sources" is only needed when you want to establish notability for something. A single fact can easily be referenced with a single source (in this case in context) +_ Mgm|(talk) 12:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, apologies for not making myself clearer. To make it specific, I want to establish notability for this album per Wikipedia:Notability, through the use of verified content taken from multiple, reliable, independant sources as per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. As this has not happened, and is unlikely to happen in the near future due to the in-development status of the album, the article should be deleted until these sources exist from which notability for this album can be established. -- saberwyn 02:02, 31 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 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Robertson snp

Dennis Robertson snp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography of an SNP candidate, who has contested one election to the Scottish Parliament, coming second. Does not represent a neutral point of view. Unelected candidates are not usually considered inherently notable, as per the notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN, and no other claim of notability is presented. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:18, 30 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 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Java syntax

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

Article has been transwikied to b:Java Programming/Syntax; this is purely manual-style content which does not provide descriptive, real-world value beyond that which is addressed in the Java (programming language) article. Was PRODded only to be contested on procedural grounds due to the same thing happening three years ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a valid fork from Java (programming language). Java is syntactically distinct and an interesting case in syntax. I consider the syntactical anomalies and choices in Java to be encyclopaedic. The page however needs to be severly cleaned up as I agree with the assertion that this looks more like a manual than an article. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per Usernme h8er, we probably should have an article on the topic of Java syntax. The language is important, and its syntax is highly influential (C#, for instance, having been very heavily influenced by it). There's room for an article describing the unusual features of it and cataloguing what its influences were and what it has influenced. But that isn't what this article is; this article is a rather boring and pointless enumeration of all the syntax elements in the language. If kept, it needs to be almost entirely rewritten. But unless it seems like somebody is going to take on the task of fixing it (I don't have the time to work on such a large project, otherwise I would) I think it should be deleted, or perhaps just cut back to a stub, until such time as somebody does take it on. JulesH (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. The degree to which the article would need rewritten to provide an encyclopedic view of the subject basically negates the possibility of getting there from here. There's so little here which can be salvaged that is essentially useless as a starting point. It can't be used to develop an article, and isn't currently recognisable as an encyclopedia article itself. The material won't be lost; it's been moved to a far more appropriate home on Wikibooks if it needs referenced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't delete things just because they need to be re-written. See WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been preserved, by transwikiing it. Were there salvageable content I wouldn't be taking it to AfD. "Wherever possible" does not mean "in every single case". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if none of the existing content is salvageable, I think the proper remedy in this case is re-writing rather than deletion. I realise you disagree but I think policy is on my side here.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the AfD was to confirm that consensus is that the content, throughout its history, is not worth keeping. If it's kept it'll be stubbed, thus removing any point in keeping it in the first place. I fail to see what the value is in continuing to drag a useless revision history around in that case. The rot set in in the third revision of the article, and it's never gone anywhere positive since. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per User:S Marshall's excellent points. Ikip (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article is essential to understanding the Java programming language. And as ikip pointed out, Afd is not for cleanup. This article simply needs a little rewording. Deleting this article would seriously hamper the coverage and understanding of java on wikipedia. Smallman12q (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per S Marshall. decltype 15:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup. Artw (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not because it needs rewriting. But because there is nothing that is worth keeping. Taemyr (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While the topic of Java syntax is likely suitable, this article is 100% not that article. I understand that we normally do not delete articles that potentially could be viable, but this article is not the start of such an article. In fact the presence of the current content is likely to be an impediement to the creation of such an article editors may be hesitant to cut the content down to zero before starting. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Niyonsaba

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

Footballer has not played senior international, olympic or fully professional match, generally accepted as minimum criteria for notability of Association football players per WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYNClubOranjeTalk 10:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions.
  • Delete. Don't you just hate it when perfectly good (and seconded) PRODs are removed by anonymous users for no reason? Neither the NZ Football League nor the NCAA are fully professional so he fails WP:ATHLETE, no sources are given to suggest he would pass WP:BIO, and he has acheived nothing of note to pass WP:N. Bettia (rawr!) 11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and second Bettia's note about the prod removal - shouldn't be allowed without a rationale. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 13:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable youth football player. I disagree with Bettia and #57 about the prod removal though. It's not good form to remove the prod without rationale, agreed, but I see no ground for disallowing it. Apparently someone objects to deletion. We've got AFD to assess whether the objections are valid. If there is no ground for keeping the article, it will get deleted anyway, regardless of the route. The article might be on Wikipedia a few days longer, but is that such a bad thing? Aecis·(away) talk 14:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he is a non-notable youth player. Maybe we need to publicise WP:N and WP:ATHLETE more. DeMoN2009 11:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miscarriage of justice cases

Miscarriage of justice cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List with no possible NPOV criteria for entry. Shadowjams (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh? The "NPOV criteria for entry" is surely any situation in which someone has received a prison term or equally harsh punishment for a crime of which they were later proved to be innocent. I can't agree with a nomination on the basis Shadowjams cites, so keep.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all cases sourced, official recognition of judicial errors, no POV pushing. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sourcing might be there, but so is the critical commentary and cherry-picking of cases to assert the point of the article. This reads more like a list of plot devices for bad 90's movie of the week topics than it does any serious examination of the subject. Nate • (chatter) 11:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable, verifiable, objective criterion, not indiscriminate. I don't know how Shadowjams can seriously contest that there are no possible NPOV criteria for entry. If someone would like to use the article's talk page to explain where the POV enters in terms of alleged cherry-picking of cases and POV pushing in the descriptions, this can be fixed - it's not an argument for deletion. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the concept of the page is fine, any problems can be improved with more rigorous vetting. NPOV is not an issue since a court's decision to overturn a conviction is pretty easy to verify. All people included should preferably have their own page - but the list can also prompt people to write article's about such people. Malick78 (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-sourced for the most part, and anything that isn't sourced can obviously be removed. If there's a POV being pushed I don't see what it is, nor do I see any evidence of "cherry picking" of cases; all the notable cases I'm aware of are included. JulesH (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Content from this list was moved here. Because this new article is considered for deletion, I restored the contents of the original article from where the material was moved out of. Unlike this article, the original article does define the criteria the list entries have to satify. So, I would be in favor of deleting this article provided the original article keeps the list, or we could keep this article, and include the definition of miscarriage of justice etc. as is done in the original article and then delete the lists in the original article. Count Iblis (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is to be kept, I think it's better as a separate list. Shadowjams (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Assuming this is kept - and it looks like a fork with a worthy justification to me - perhaps a better title could be found? Like list of false convictions of crime or something similar? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nothing wrong with that title, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the existing one, either. 'Miscarriage of justice' the usual term of art (or it may even be strictly defined; I'm not sure) for this class of event. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd even prefer Cases of miscarriage of justice, it just sounds less clunky to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the title is one of the central problems (discussed below). Shadowjams (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might be possible to create a neutral criteria for inclusion if the term is defined narrowly enough. The parent article does this by saying it's a conviction of which the person did not commit. That criteria is not listed here and if it's adequate, it needs to be. However, even if it is listed, I think there are other problems.
  • Title gives the wrong impression - The title suggests a much broader set of criteria than the criteria given in the parent article. The name suggests and the parent article mentions non-criminal cases that can also be lumped under the topic. I cannot agree with AlexTiefling's confidence that the criteria for inclusion will fix the misconception given by a much broader title. Both the parent and the definition given here make no requirement that the conviction actually be overturned or judged on legally.
  • Absence of official ruling requirement leads to subjectivity - While a wrongful conviction is an easy include, much harder are the issues involved in pleas and technical errors. Defenses to crimes, like self-defense, create issues because it will require wikipedia editors to make a subjective legal judgment on an issue, particularly when the court has not formally exonerated the individual. (example)
  • Choosing criteria will involve devisive choices - Despite the exasperation, it is a real concern that choosing a criteria will be hard to do neutrally. Of course I don't suggest that someone cannot come up with a criteria that is fair or in good faith, but even the good ones given now bring up these issues and I don't think they've been resolved. Shadowjams (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shadowjams, I don't want to be a grammar Nzi here, but your above contribution is so badly written as to suggest willful obfuscation.
Could you kindly re-state your views, in an easily understood idiom? Thanks. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this response is a joke. Otherwise I resent the suggestion I'm hiding the ball. Read my bullet points alone and it explains my objections. Maybe it would be better as a list of WP:....Shadowjams (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: All the entries in the list are cases where people had been convicted and then the sentence was overturned and the person no longer faces the charges. E.g., if a high court overturns a sentence but then orders a retrial, then that does not count as a miscarriage. Only if the person is cleared in the retrial can such a case be included in the list. An example would be the case of Alan Beaman (included in the list as the first US entry of the year 2009). His sentence was overturned in 2008 and the case was sent back for retrial. The prosecutor initially did not drop the charges. A few days ago the prosecutor did drop the charges, so his case now counts as a miscarriage.
This criterium that we've been sticking to is thus biased because we don't include people who are very likely wrongfully convicted but are still in jail, no matter how strong the evidence for wrongful conviction is. Count Iblis (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is why miscarriage of justice is a problematic name for the article; because a miscarriage of justice can happen in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, where the reputedly wrong decision is made. Many people think that O. J. Simpson's acquittal for murder was a "miscarriage of justice", and I'm sure that published sources can be found that call it that, but it isn't on the list. The list seems to contain only people who were convicted of crimes and later exonerated. That list has clear criteria for inclusion: but while "miscarriage of justice" may well describe such cases, it isn't specific enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While particulars cases may debatable and controversial, generally this list has clear inclusion criteria (either formal judicial overturn or wide general recognition of wrongfulness of conviction). I support rename to List of miscarriage of justice cases, to mark it clearly as an article subject to WP:LIST, and because the content is too exhaustive to be included in the Miscarriage of justice article ¨¨ victor falk 09:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment List should be added to the name. Other names might be better. Maybe "List of wrongful convictions", or "List of overturned wrongful convictions". Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with some clear understanding of what should be included. I think it would be necessary to have Wikipedia articles on each, and to strengthen the criterion to that they have been released because of the acceptance by the courts (or the unambiguous statements of multiple absolutely RSs of their actual innocence, not technical reasons for overturning the verdict. (actually I think all or almost all of the cases here meet that requirement, but I do not think a single quote to a newspaper sufficient for this). A problem here is that there may be some resistance to Wikipedia having articles on some of these, because of the over-broad interpretation of ONE EVENT. {Personally, I am strongly of the opinion that such resistance would be absurd, given the appropriate public and press interest in these.) There is at least one case where the release is after a long period in jail awaiting trial, but without a conviction, (Raymond H. Jonassen) , and I am not sure this fits the criteria either--there are probably many more such that never get widely reported. I note the the listing of Sacco and Vanzetti is somewhat dubious--the article on them seems to be in the process of being rewritten to clarify the current views. It might be appropriate to have an article or section on people widely viewed as being wrongly convicted, where the matter remains unclear, or even where the conviction was in fact correct (as, probably, with Julius Rosenberg). DGG (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whatever criteria is chosen, it will have to decide how to deal with a few scenarios that will be controversial. Wikipedia is not the place to do OR about guilt or innocence. So we have to rely on objective, perhaps official criteria. That isn't as cut and dried as some of the previous users have assumed. Here are some examples of issues that will have to be accommodated (and these are not bizarre technical arguments, but real scenarios):
    • Pardons - An individual is convicted, but pardoned before appeals (or after all avenues are extinguished). A pardon is an admission of guilt (Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)), but as a practical matter it may be used for the innocent as well. Certainly not all pardons are miscarriage of justices, but some may be. If there's a pardon do we require another formal declaration of innocence from a court or another body?
    • Technicalities resulting in retrials or release - If a retrial is ordered, let's say for allegations of fraud by a witness, is the result of the retrial the formal declaration? What if the prosecution drops charges and so a retrial never results in an acquittal. Are prosecutors dropping charges sufficiently official acts? What if a later prosecutor brings those charges again (Southern while supremacist murders for example).
    • Dual verdicts - Double jeopardy doctrine permits the federal government and the state government to try an individual for the same act, even if they result in different verdicts. Are these cases (where the individual has been formally exonerated but is still in prison) worthy of inclusion?
    • Imprisonment without conviction - As DGG points out, what about individuals who are not convicted, but are held as a matter of course. Prisoners of war, enemy combatants, etc. If these individuals are released and factually innocent, but never declared to be exonerated by the government, are these cases included?
    • Pleas What if an innocent individual pleas to a lesser charge but is later understood to be innocent. Do they have to wait for an official pardon? (See pardon above for issues with this).
I think this debate has been a good one, and I appreciate everyone's sincerity. These are real issues that need to be decided, and this would be a good opportunity to do so. I believe that the issues I've just described are potentially fatal. Deciding any one of them either way will be controversial, and if it doesn't appear like that now, just wait until someone wants to put a close case on the list. If the list is to stay, these criteria need to be thoroughly understood now in advance. Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I find this one difficult to decide. Obviously miscarriages of justice are notable by any definition, but how can this ever become a comprehensive, or if not that even a representative list. This is a case where WP:V and WP:NPOV collide. By including only verifiable cases we are excluding nearly all of the miscarriages of justice carried out by, for example, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, apartheid South Africa, the Peoples Republic of China, the Pinochet regime in Chile etc, not to mention what went on before the last century. Because of the very nature of these regimes most miscarriages of justice haven't been reported by reliable sources, but by excluding the non-verifiable cases we are presenting a very unbalanced picture of where most miscarriages of justice have happened. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with fixes per DGG et al. Lots of legal articles have been controversial, e.g., Palestinian law, which was resolved with clean-up, redirect, and renaming. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Face Lift

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

Although there is a category for professional wresting moves, this seems to be one move invented and used by one wrestler, and would therefore seem to fail general notability CultureDrone (talk) 09:54, 30 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 American Idol (season 6). MBisanz talk 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance Head

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

I think we've reached the point where Sundance isn't notable enough to have an article. We have a long standing guideline that states that only finalists should have articles. Well Sundance was eliminated just before the finals. For awhile, this was ok because he had signed a major record deal. But apparently that was just for a duet single with Sabrina Sloan. His official myspace page says that he's unsigned and there is no evidence that that isn't true. So I think it's time to redirect the article to American Idol (season 6) just like Sabrina Sloan's is. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:23, 30 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 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riskay

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

Delete. This is just another MySpace act which has received minor coverage as a result of a tasteless song title and little more. JBsupreme (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable; WP:MUSIC criterion 1 is the only colorable theory for inclusion, and even that fails, requiring a musician (purported or actual) to have "been the subject of multiple [and] non-trivial published works." Her mentions in the New York Times and the New Yorker are trivial, amounting to a couple of sentences buried in articles about multiple subjects.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with the above. While the publications are reliable sources, the mentions are very trivial. Fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 10:44, 31 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.

I came here to find out abourt Riskay. Where is the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.164.238 (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Huynh

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

The article is unsourced, despite the fact that it claims Kevin Huynh is an accomplished drifter. A google search reveals only blogs, profile websites and an unrelated realtor with the same name. A more specific search on drifting websites still yields no reliable sources. As such, subject seems to fail WP:BIO. Atlan (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blogs and the like are not enough to satisfy WP:BIO policy. If the subject has received coverage by reliable sources then they need to be presented here. JBsupreme (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources about this person -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life: Absolute Redemption

Half-Life: Absolute Redemption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is about an unofficial mod that fails verifiability and notability as well as being sourced only be unreliable sources.じんない 08:25, 30 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) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreeMind

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

Non-notable, no sources Boatsdesk (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Boatsdesk is a new editor. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please do your homework and give arguments in support of your AfD request. Just pointing out that the article misses sources is not per se an argument to delete an entry (you should use the {{citations missing}} template instead). As for the ludicrous non-notability claim (here it comes again...), Freemind has an average of more than 5,000 downloads/day and a significant coverage in blogs and open source related sources. --DarTar (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see where downloads equals notability. Also, if there is such significant coverage in blogs, please incorporate it into the article. Boatsdesk (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC) [Edit: Also, I nominated for deletion because of Ronz' comment on the FreeMind discussion from Oct 08. Sorry, I'm new here and did not know about the Citation tag) Boatsdesk (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Downloads have been one of the criteria historically used to assess the popularity of software. Not that I like this particularly, but you would be expected to make some preliminary research before requesting an AfD. If it is the case that you are "new" here, may I ask why instead of improving the article, you registered to Wikipedia just to request the deletion of a stub as your very first edit? --DarTar (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Number of downloads may be a criterion for measuring popularity, but popularity is not an inclusion criterion for Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very active community on sourceforge.net, good example of successful OS software in my opinion. What is needed to improve the WP page? --Method1955 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2009 (GMT+1)
    • Note that Method1955 is a new editor --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note that Boatsdesk is a new editor, he requested a VfD as his first WIkipedia edit without even knowing, by his own admission, the guidelines relative to stubs--DarTar (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't illegal to be a new user. We all started there. Remember, please do not bite the newcomers. Ikluft (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inclusion criteria for stubs are no different from the inclusion criteria for our longest articles. I would advise DarTar to become familiar with Wikipedia guidelines before trying to lecture other people on them. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delete or stub This is one of the annoying stub articles that attracts a great deal of spam, while never meeting WP:N criteria through multiple, independent sources. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promotion of products and technologies. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to keep. The article now has two uncontested sources that demonstrate notability.--Ronz (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was easily able to find references and added them to the article. This is my usual test on an AfD. If I can find acceptable refs, I add them and vote "keep". If I can't and it looks like it will never have any, I vote "delete". This one passes that test. Ikluft (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Ikluft (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Refs have been added and the download counter is high enough. --Nils Lindenberg (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Nils Lindenberg is a new editor. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't edit much on en with my user name, but I have a lot of wp-experience (see my user-page at de). --134.76.2.28 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Mostly because I forget to log myself in. --Nils Lindenberg (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some refs are available, there seems to be use for this program and thus at least some people using or willing to integrate it with their own software. --BenBE1987 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that BenBE1987 has only one previous edit. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shouldn't have to repeat this. Please do not bite the newcomers. It at least carries the appearance of being unfriendly to point at new editors like that. If someone makes a mistake and you notice they're new, offer help. If they persist, then deal with it on a case-by-case basis. But don't pick on someone who has only expressed an opinion (opposing yours, I should add!) for being new. New editors are not excluded from AfD discussion by any policy. I urge the closing editor not to consider disparaging remarks against new editors because it's simply contrary to WP guidelines to do that, and it isn't nice. Ikluft (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is biting the newcomers here. Please follow WP:NPA and stick to the topic at hand. Identifying new editors in an AfD is standard procedure. Attacking editors because you don't like this procedure is disruptive to this AfD. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No attack intended. My concern remains unanswered. Please keep it to the point - which policy or guideline is behind that "standard procedure" of calling out new editors? That would be the only convincing argument that it isn't biting them. After all, that's the first line at WP:AfD#AfD_Wikietiquette. Ikluft (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better to take WP:BITE accusations to the editor's talk page, than violate WP:NPA by bringing it up here. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll repeat the question since it's still unanswered. Which policy or guideline is behind that "standard procedure" of calling out new editors? Ikluft (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there isn't an answer to that (which is apparently the case) then I'd advise reconsidering whoever's example made that appear "standard". It was a bad example that shouldn't be followed. It can reasonably be expected that calling out new editors will be taken personally by those subjected to it in any AfD discussion. Ikluft (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sincerely, I'm quite shocked about this AfD... and more important, about its discussion. FreeMind is the only GPL software that stands up against proprietary mindmapping solutions. Its importance and contributions to the field have great acknowledgement, and it is easy to prove it. I won't include the references into the article but i can post a few here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... As another test, in Ohloh it's ranked on page 6 of 8776 pages ordered by popularity, before important projects such as GNU Mailman, OpenSuse, Plone, Mantis, Eclipse Mylyn, Apache Lucene, Symfony, PHPUnit... --Samer.hc (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry too much that the AfD nomination was made. AfD discussions are about consensus over whether Wikipedia policies and guidelines support deletion of the article, not a straight-up vote. The closing admin will look at whether consensus was reached and who made the most convincing policy-related statements. This one appears to be on course to survive. Thanks for the references. I added the MacWorld ref to the article due to your submission. The Innovation Tools ref was already in the article. The LinuxMag ref requires a login so I skipped it. (I had found that in my search too.) The #4 and #5 refs look like blogs, which aren't good enough to be reliable sources so I had to skip those. So one new reliable source (MacWorld) is still quite helpful. I also added an additional reference from a Fox Business News article. So this article has risen well above any claim of being unsourced. Ikluft (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough reliable sources have been presented to provide notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. I'm shocked someone could even regard FreeMind as not notable, when it's the first Open Source and cross-platform mind mapping software out there. It has always been open source and cross-platform (since the project's start in 2000), and in that category has only been joined late last year by an Open Source version of XMind (which even has support for importing FreeMind files but doesn't have the full functionality of the non-free "Pro" version). There are some other (newer) Open Source mind mapper projects (like for instance Labyrinth), but these are not cross-platform. FreeMind stands out as the first completely Open Source, completely cross-platform mind mapping software. If that isn't notable enough, then we can add that in February 2006 it was Project of the Month at SourceForge.net before being nominated for Best Project in SourceForge's Community Choice Awards for 2008. Others have already referred to numbers of downloads and the variety of other software that supports FreeMind. --JavaWoman (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wonder why there are so strange criteria for softwares. I guess they are there to avoid single hobbyist software writers to use Wikipedia to advertise their "silly" homemade software that only they and their friends use. FreeMind is not surely the case. And again a would like to discuss the sense of Wikipedia and knowledge; to me, if the deletion criterion is valid for FreeMind, with the proper "translation" it could also be valid for rare words, or some scientific terms which are known by less than 5000 people on this earth. But maybe this is another topic. Just keep the first part: FreeMind is not an homemade unknown software, and like other software on Wikipedia, it deserves the page. --Ittakezou0 (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrado Malanga

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

Subject fails the relevant notability criteria, specifically WP:BIO and WP:PROF. I have looked for independent, reliable, English-language sources that would establish notability, and found none. Yilloslime (t) 06:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 5x as many Ghits if you don't filter out non-English sources. Looking at the first few pages of results, none of them look any more reliable or independent than the English sources, but I don't speak Italian so I can't be 100% sure. And while I agree that the sources don't have to be in English, as this is en.wiki, English sources would be preferable. And what's notable and relevant to one audience (say Italians) isn't necessarily notable and relevant to another (say English speakers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs)
  • Keep First, with respect to the chemistry: According to Web of science, 51 Published papers, many is top-quality journals (eg. Tetrahedron Letters) highest cites 70, 39, 39, 33, 32. I added some basic external links. This is a respectable, although not brilliant record. However, he is a Senior Researcher, not a professor, and teaches only elementary courses. I suspect (and hope) that he is somewhat of an embarrassment to the department. As a ufologist, it's much harder to tell what counts as notable, but I think he probably qualifies also. My own personal view is that the bios of genuine scientists with his sort of extreme ufological views are fortunately rare, but generally notable. Wikipedia should be providing a neutral record of these anomalies of human psychology.I added some basic external links and cleaned up the chem section a little. DGG (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:PROF, simply having published papers in well respected journals is does [not] establish sufficient notability for inclusion. If that were the standard, just about every single chemist with a PhD would be worthy of inclusion. And while interesting, there is no criterion by which to judge the number of cites certain papers of his get--It may be that 70 other chemist thought his one paper was important enough to cite, or it may be that he's cited that paper in every subsequent paper he's written. Many researchers always cite their previous work, thereby inflating there citation count. And on how many of those 54 papers--and 54 papers isn't really all that many for an academic chemist; and Tet Lett is not the paragon of synthesis journals--on how many of those papers was he the first author or the corresponding author? We don't know, and that's why number of papers published and number of citations to those papers is not a criteria in WP:PROF. Yilloslime (t) 17:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted "not" in your comment above, which I think was your intention. yes, it's not just having papers, but the number of papers, where they are published, how much they are cited, and who cites them. This is the way the influence and importance of a scientist is measured. The only question is whether in this particular field of chemistry this is borderline or not. As he only wrote 51 papers, there is no possible way for him to have cited one of them in 70 papers. But, just to set this at rest, i went back to Web of Science and found that only 3 of them seem to be. For an example in a similar field where I think the number of publications and citation mights be marginal , see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Hooper. DGG (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am Italian and here in Italy there is a violent argument "firestorming" on Corrado Malanga. What you wrote above is more or less correct. I would just underline that he is the "supremo" researcher in alien abduction. I mean world leader. Unfortunately he wrote almost all of his works on alien interferences in Italian.
As far as I know he is the only researcher in the phenomenon who was able not only to propose an explanation of it, but also to propound a "cure" (the SIMBAD) performed simply via meditation: the SIMBAD is just a sort of "scientific" self-induced exorcism for the alleged abductees, and for the other (not-abducted) people is only a meditation "methodology".
He succeded where John Mack failed, that's the important thing about his ufologic study.
Moreover he established a "canon" of the most common alien races that the alleged abductees describe, and he developed a classification of these alleged alien interferences.
Therefore for the first time there is a wide study on the phenomenon that answers these questions:

  • Who are the alleged abductors
  • What is their alleged purposes
  • How the alleged abductors can perpetrate these alleged abduction without almost being "beheld" (except from the alleged abductee)
  • Why a person is abducted
  • How an alleged abductee can protect self successfully against these alleged interferences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.135.204 (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles need reliable sources to establish notability. --Peephole (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His academic achievements as a chemist do not impress me enough to feel that he passes WP:PROF. A good number of papers but very moderate citation counts. The articles in La Stampa and Il Giornale contribute to notability, but just 2 short articles doesn't reaaly mean that he satisfies WP:N or WP:FRINGE either. I just removed a few "sources" from the article (one a dead link, the others were links to online bulletin boards, not directly reliable sources...) --Crusio (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF, having a fairly low citation impact. Not enough independent news coverage to quality under WP:BIO, but some coverage nevertheless.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Agdam skirmish

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

As per [[26]], which was deleted earlier. Neophyteinc (talk) 04:22, 30 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 Nanna's Cottage. Deleting under redirect per Copyvio. MBisanz talk 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Sunday School

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

Delete: extremely short & short-lived (entire production run appears to have consisted of only 108 min of programming) and largely unnoticed Christian television program. No relevant GoogleBooks hits, no reliable GoogleNews or Google hits. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... I am ProDding Nanna's Cottage - equally NN! Springnuts (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect I highly disagree with the PROD for the parent article (which has since been reversed). "Largely unnoticed" is definitely subjective; many mainstream audiences would think it doesn't meet the threshold, but since it has a slot on the United States's largest Christian network and several other networks, the notability of Nanna's Cottage is a lock. In these cases, especially for Christian programming, note that not everything has to have the reach of Blues's Clues or CSI to score notability. As for this article, too much info for a two-minute segment. Nate • (chatter) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "largely unnoticed" of course means by reliable third party sources -- the benchmark for judging notability. It is not "definitely subjective". Even were the standard instead viewership, it is unlikely that "the United States's largest Christian network and several other networks" would compete with the major networks (let alone including their programs greater international viewership). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Religious networks often don't even consider mainstream networks at all as competition. They try to attract mainstream audiences for their shows, but I can pretty much say with certainty TBN doesn't care what is 'hot' on either Nick, Cartoon Network, or CW4Kids; they have a remit to serve the needs of their religious mission and raise donations to spread their ministry to stay on the air. Because of this, they don't get the coverage that most networks do. Thus notability is a tough nut to crack, and we have fewer sources to vet as a consequence. But they can be found. Nate • (chatter) 11:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't "a tough nut to crack" -- notability is largely equivalent to third party coverage. No coverage = no notability, no matter how 'worthy' individual editors might consider the topic to be. And I would remind you that it was you who introduced the comparison to mainstream shows, not myself. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article has notability concerns that I don't see it meeting. Tavix (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no significant 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To Nanna's Cottage. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G12 copyvio, article is plagiarized from [27]. Redirect, of course, will accomplish the same purpose of erasing this idiotic article. Mandsford (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not -- the "enwiki" in the URL would appear to indicate that that page is the copy. However, as with all uncited material in multiple locations, it is hard (without careful examination of edit & wayback histories) to determine which is a copy of which. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's a WikiMirror of this article on a Russian site. There's no G12 going on, they copied it from us. Nate • (chatter) 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asia-Pacific Peace Research Association (APPRA)

Asia-Pacific Peace Research Association (APPRA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Organization is non notable and possible COI from editor. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manish Thapa for more information. Shadowjams (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 31 gbooks hits under its current name, and 141 gbooks hits under its former name, including some reference works that seem to have enough information for a reasonable article.John Z (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The G.Books search indicates that reliable sources are available to establish notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Earth

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

Delete: Obscure WP:FRINGE magazine. Magazine title is sufficiently generic that it generates large numbers of unrelated search hits, but no immediately-apparent RSes. Parent organisation is 'Northern Earth Mysteries Group', which search-results in a small number of books (roughly 50/50 books published by the group and bare citations) and no news hits. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nominator seems to have the right of it. No prejudice to recreation if they do attract non-trivial treatment from independent reliable sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources present. --Peephole (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is there nothing in this search of use? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: nothing reliable, and certainly nothing reliable and third-party that provides significant coverage (either individually or collectively).
  • Yeah, after I'm not getting a lot. I suspect if the article was reworked extensively so as to focus on the Northern Earth Mysteries group as an organisation and publisher it might fare better, however even there I'm having trouble coming up with decent links from unambiguously fringey sources - we can verify they exist[28] and that they publish things[29][30] but it's not really enough to establish notablity. Irritatingly theres a news archive site that has what looks to be some good refs[31] but they are tantalisingly out of reach behind a paywall. Artw (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009-10 Milwaukee Panthers men's basketball team

AfDs for this article:
2009-10 Milwaukee Panthers men's basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced future team season. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The roster and coaching staff are speculation at this point since a lot can happen between now and the next season. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:00, 30 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 Adam Bagni, merge secondary articles into it. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bagni

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

Lack of Notability. His sources are his own television station, and minor blips on local new sites. Only notable characteristic is holding the Guinness World Record for Longest Radio Quiz. The source notes that they were attempting getting the record, but there is no record of him actually officially getting it (according to a source at the university, they followed all the procedures, but never submitted the paperwork). Numerous people have removed this "fact", and had their change reverted as vandalism. I previously proposed deletion, which was also reverted as vandalism. Joe CoT (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are for minor TV shows that this person is involved in, which are also not notable:

Inside_the_Tide_and_the_Tigers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joe CoT (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AUM_Sports_Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joe CoT (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and possibly salt, CSD G4 as recreation of article previously deleted in an AFD discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Bagni (second nomination). Redfarmer (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Adam Bagni, as my speedy was declined. Only regional recognition. Award won was a regional award, not a major award. Being a minor crew member on some national sports programs does not constitute notability. This guy has never had an on-air spot with any national broadcaster. I can't believe we're actually thinking of keeping this article. One person below actually admitted the article was originally created as a joke while he was still in college and he hasn't done anything since that would suggest he's any the more notable. Nothing has changed in his world since the last AfD that would make him notable. No opinion on other articles as this was the only article I was commenting on when I first came here. Redfarmer (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A group AfD is always difficult because each article must now be judged on its indivual merits. I will trust the closing admin to sort it all out. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is clearly not in violation of any wikipedia policy. It contains information regarding an on-air, television personality. Do I have to list the vast amount of local and national sportcasters that are on Wikipedia? It is not a copy of a previous page 66.0.131.50 (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not remove the AfD header from these nominated pages until the discussion is finished Joe CoT (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those sportscasters would presumably be notable. If there are sportscasters with articles that are of equal or less notability as that of this person, please provide me links to those articles, so that I can also propose them for deletion. Joe CoT (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have declined the speedy, as while this version of the article is clearly based on the previously deleted version (some paragraphs are word for word), this version is much longer and contains additional cites. Therefore, I believe G4 is not applicable here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep As the creator of this article, I think it's definitely worthy of Wikipedia. Local newscasters are filled all throughout Wikipedia and they are notable folks, particularly in the communities for which they are recognizable. With all of the print journalists listed too, it just seems appropriate. To me, if you're on TV everyday, that makes you at least notable enough for Wikipedia. Revzzz (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please explain how this person has become more notable than the last time the article was deleted? He's still a regional sportscaster, and he's gained no further recognition. Joe CoT (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was deleted in 2005 and then again in 2006. A lot has hapened in the intevening 3 years. Awards and records. Its minor and regional, but he now passes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well when we made Adam's page a couple years ago, it was kind of a joke - we were still in college and he really hadn't done anything notable yet. But now, he's been working for this ABC station as a sportscaster in Alabama's capital for over a year. With the massive amount of local news people listed on this site, I don't see why he's any differnt. Listing him certainly isn't a DETRIMENT to Wikipedia, that's for sure. Revzzz (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adam Bagni. Since the first appearance of this article in 2005, Adam has been a busy fellow... getting press, winning awards, and setting records. A nice set of accomplishments in the intervening 4 years that have made him now worthy of inclusion. Salt? Deletion? Naw. I did a bit of copyedit on the article. It passes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've said numerous times, the article cited does not say that he won the world record. It says that he attempted it. There is no mention anywhere of him actually getting the record. No matter how you shuffle the information around, he's still not notable. Joe CoT (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Found the source and added it. Or is The Collegian now unreliable? Added it and other sources. This fellow has not sat still over the interveneing 4 years. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see no reference that includes him getting the world record for longest radio quiz, which is the only "notable" aspect claimed. If I am missing any reference besides this FOX philly article (which says he attempted it), please let me know. Let's go through all the references, shall we?
          • Bio for Bagni, on the website of the TV Channel he works for
          • Blip on Bagni in the local paper of his home town. Take a look at the other articles that make it to the front page of their local paper.
          • four sentences in an aggregate article about new hires. His name isn't even mentioned in the title of the article.
          • WEXP award article. The awards went to lots of people. If this makes someone notable, please also add articles for Mike Petty and Andrew Neumann.
          • Article on record attempt. a) his name isn't even mentioned, b) again, no mention anywhere of them actually receiving the award.
          • Another aggregate article of new hires. It's a talent recruiting company, and bagni was a client.
        • Based on any of this criteria, please tell me how this person is notable, using any of the notability guidelines for people. If this is what passes as notable, then, since I have a blip here and here, it's a travesty that I have yet to have an article, and I'll pay a friend 20 bucks tomorrow to put one up. Joe CoT (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Inside the Tide and the Tigers and AUM Sports Show atubs to Adam Bagni#Career where they have utility and set redirect to the the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is "second nomination" listed above twice? The first was way back in 2005. The second in 2006. This one, 3 years later should be 3rd. Yes? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP As the Adam Bagni, I've been rightfully avoiding this discussion. It'll be interesting to see if I'm "worthy" enough for Wikipedia - I certainly hope so. But as a Wikipedia semi-buff, speaking in general about local news folks, I think it's fairly clear that we are notable. How many people do you know that appear on television nightly in front of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people? I certainly think my sources pass as well. To claim our station website isn't legit is really misplaced. Thank you. 66.0.131.50 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not claim that your station website isn't legitimate. What I claim is that the articles of your station website and a recruiting agency you are a client of are not sufficiently independent of you to be considered evidence of notability. I have articles written about me by other members of the Ubuntu community, and other members of my team. I also believe my mother may have said nice things about me once, and I have reference letters from teachers, if you'd like to see them. While I appreciate those things, I do not consider them independent enough to make me notable.

      You're correct in that I do not know many people that appear on television to thousands or millions of people. Can you provide any links to ratings of your news cast, or your television program? That may also be useful for determining your notability. Joe CoT (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've changed the article so that instead of saying Bagni was awarded the Guinness World record, it says that he participated in an attempt on the Guinness world record. The reason I have changed this is that the reference given only mentions the attempt, and I've been unable to find any source stating the Guinness actually awarded them a new record. If you are going to change the article back, please also provide a source for the actual award. I note this here, as I believe the difference between attempting and receiving the record means a great deal towards notability. Joe CoT (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fair enough tweak. I fixed the ref format some, did a deeper search, added a few more sources, and tagged it for additional WP:RESCUE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing Admin If the Bagni article is kept, and since I have seen no comments about the two others proposed for deletion in this multiple listing, I ask that you consider userfying Inside the Tide and the Tigers and AUM Sports Show to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Inside the Tide and the Tigers and User:MichaelQSchmidt/AUM Sports Show and I will be glad to do the merge. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "deletion discussion" link in the rescue box re-directs to the first nomination, instead of this discussion. How do we fix that? Revzzz (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We can keep it, but I wouldn't note that he heads internships. That doesn't seem especially notable (at least at the top of the article). Don't you agree? Although it is another source... 24.214.53.191 (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In agreement that his intern stuff can/should be moved lower. Just haven't figured out where to best fit in in yet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Lamar

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

Not notable, fails WP:BIO as well as WP:ENTERTAINER. No reliable sources are available to attest to notability. I tagged the article two weeks ago asking for reliable sources, and none were added. I went searching on my own (Gale and ProQuest) and found no significant interviews, only a few quotes, some photographs, and some mentions in the Village Voice about her party promoting. Although she has appeared in a few films in the last few years, she has not had "significant roles in multiple notable films". Although the article is three years old, I believe it doesn't meet today's stricter standards for notability. The article right now just seems to serve as a vanity page for Sophia Lamar, one that she might have started and/or tried to maintain herself. cswpride (talk) 03:40, 30 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 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coter

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

This constructed language does not attempt to establish notability and was created by a small group of people on Second Life. It's not even on the conlang Wikia. Theymos (talk) 03:38, 30 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 17:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Baxter Utley

Kyle Baxter Utley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article, alludes to notability by association, but not notable in own right. MBisanz talk 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His chief claim to fame appears to be the two companies he founded, Flip It Records and Pagoda Ventures. There is a mention of him in relation to the Flip-It Records release of the Dolly Parton's single in a brief Time Magazine article: People: Move over Madonna, here's Dolly. And that's it. No other commercially released recordings and 0 press coverage of the company, [32] apart from the April 7, 1997 Time article. Likewise 0 general web coverage in reliable, independent sources, just a few digital downloads, and used promo recordings for sale. The WP article itself says the company closed after 2 years because of "licensing disputes" with Universal Music Group. As for Pagoda Ventures, if it is "one of the world's major metal trading companies" as the article asserts, there would be more coverage in Google news than this [33]. Likewise, no significant general web coverage by reliable independent sources [34]. These are the Google News results (all dates) for "Kyle Baxter Utley" [35], presumably a different "Kyle Baxter Utley"? (e.g. "U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White says Kyle Baxter Utley was engaged in a host of fraud schemes from 1992 to 1997." - UPI, 10-15-1998) See also general web results for "Kyle Baxter Utley [36] and "Kyle Utley" [37]. I also have a subscription to the Highbeam publications library. Nothing there either, apart from what's already been mentioned. - Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure to satisfy WP:N.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:12, 30 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 Electronic billing. MBisanz talk 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EBillMe

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

No refs, no notability (asserted or otherwise). flaminglawyer 02:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It gets plenty of hits on google - there's a website called ebillme.com which certainly appears to have some notability. However this is bordering on advertising. I would suggest redirecting to Electronic billing unless someone improves it. -- roleplayer 02:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new to really editing Wikipedia, but I'm trying to do my honest best. This is NOT advertising any more than any page on any business. Now, I think it might be good to have some general page that describes the type of service this is, and lists eBillMe as one provider. Fact is, objective information about this type of service is valid. It is not simply Electronic Billing, because it doesn't actually work like that, but rather uses that system in order to function, but it is a different service. I don't know that ebillme should be a unique wikipedia page, but it SHOULD be listed and explained somewhere on wikipedia. Objective comparison of its functions versus Paypal or Google Checkout or others is valid. Those other services are discussed here at wikipedia. eBillMe is unique in its operation. I first found out about it when using a site that offered it and I came to wikipedia hoping to find more information. I admit the initial article was not ideal, but my hope was that it would just be a start and eventually an article up to wikipedia's standards would be developed. --Backfromquadrangle (talk) 15:54, 27 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 03:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An online business that contains no references and no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article should be improved. As of today this company has 70 hits on ProQuest Newspapers, 68 on InfoTrac OneFile (Gale), and 9,630,000 hits on Google; it is currently involved in an intellectual property case in the U.S.(Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00897-CCB) with another company we have an article for Billmelater.com (ProQuest: 42,Infotrac: 4); and we have yet another article for at least one similar service, eWise (ProQuest:32,InfoTrac:10). There certainly should be enough Wikipedia:RS to prove NP:Notability. If the original author needs assistance with improving this page, perhaps the Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron could help? cswpride (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Heavy Heavy Low Low. MBisanz talk 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's Watched, Everyone's Watching

AfDs for this article:
Everything's Watched, Everyone's Watching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-charting indie. No significant 3rd party notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:37, 27 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 03:10, 30 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 Heavy Heavy Low Low. MBisanz talk 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Kids Kids

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

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-charting indie. No significant 3rd party notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:36, 27 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 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Heavy Heavy Low Low A mention of the album in the gropus article is justifiable. A full seperate article is not.Pedro :  Chat  14:53, 30 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 00:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawodu

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

Maybe the article on the surname should remain, but I'm not even sure of that. The list of names appears non-notable. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I deleted persons without notability potential. - 7-bubёn >t 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - could someone direct me to WP guidance on surnames as entries?  J L G 4 1 0 4  04:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The etymology, translations, pronunciations, and so forth of a noun, proper or common, can be handled at Wiktionary. Surname articles are essentially name disambiguations. People are often commonly known, or referred to, by solely their family names. Therefore surname articles disambiguate amongst all of the people with that surname, and link to Wiktionary with {{wiktionary}}, or even explicitly in the introduction, for the dictionary entry on the proper noun. See Busch, for example. Uncle G (talk) 04:23, 30 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 00:53, 25 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 03:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Uncle G. It looks like this should be a disambig page, but I'm still new and not sure how to do that. I would recommend (not knowing the technical term): turn into disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlg4104 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawodu is a popular Nigerian surname that is derived from its different Arabic versions like DAWOOD, DAUD,etc, all meaning first son or David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.155.175 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRU Youth Leagues: Blues Region

WRU Youth Leagues: Blues Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable youth league. Not fully professional. No sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V Nouse4aname (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Blues are a major club so I feel this article is notable although there is a lack of encyclopaedic information. It just needs to be expanded. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has nothing to do with the Blues, it just refers to a league consisting of youth teams in their region. Note that notability is not inherited and that youth teams are not fully professional and thus do not generally satisfy notability criteria. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:23, 20 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 00:42, 25 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 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - youth leagues are not generally notable, this one seems no exception -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 30 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 Thug Ride. MBisanz talk 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dozia Slim

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

Not only is this a very short article with little context, it also fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Moreover, the only Google hits I could find lead to YouTube, message boards, and unsourced wikis. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:17, 20 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 00:48, 25 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 03:08, 30 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 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Hooper

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

Malcolm Hooper does not have the notability by WP:PROF, he is retired professor without notable accomplishment in biochemistry. There is a few Malcolm Hoopers in Google News like a cricket player and a member of fascist party from 1930s. This Malcolm Hooper is most known as lay activist for chronic fatigue syndrome but there is not reliable sources and he is not a recognized expert. I do not find sources about him, but some do mention him but I do not think it is significant. RetroS1mone talk 03:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a typical minor academic with emeritus syndrome, but he got significant mention in the press for his campaigning. Apart from the Guardian piece currently cited in the article, there's also another Guardian article on his feud with Wessely and a briefer mention here in a Guardian article on Gulf War Syndrome. That's just the first two mentions in a minute's searching. N p holmes (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note, Hoooper does not have notability in WP:PROF, he can have notability in general bio guidelines. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" The guardian piece in the article is primary, by Hoooper it is not about Hooper so not independent. The articles N p holmes says about are primary sources. Do you get notability by your name mentioned in a few primary sources, i do not know but i do not think so, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". RetroS1mone talk 13:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some confusion here: the articles I am citing here are what most people would call secondary sources. The first at least is not just a mention – it discusses Hooper at length. N p holmes (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Just looking at the career as a medicinal chemist, based on Web of Science I find 31 peer-reviewed papers on chemistry,in good journals, highest citations 20, 18, 17. This is a minor career, mostly from the days when it was Sunderland Polytechnic, and probably would not have gotten him a professorship today at Sutherland. He may be more prominent with respect to autism. DGG (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Minor career, but seems important in the political debate around CFS. Sam Weller (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough independent news coverage to justify inclusion under WP:BIO, even after skipping false positives.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Government: NationStates

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

This game has no assertion of notability, and, as the article stands right now, it doesn't appear to meet the notability standards. If you look at the references, they're all simply from the website, therefore, they don't meet the standards of WP:ReliableSources. EDIT: I see that it was kept last time, but there are still no reliable sources or claims to notability. If it's kept, the article needs verifiable references. hmwithτ 03:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Pretty popular site. Here are some third party references: [38], [39], [40]. TJ Spyke 05:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm pretty discouraged with Wikipedians' inconsistent completely random decisions on browser games at AfD, but surely we should have an article on Nation States, at least.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are some google news search sources: [41], [42]. Definately notable. Fribbler (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TJ Spyke. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extremely notable as one of very few occasions a novelist has created a game to promote his novel. JulesH (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Here's another 3rd-party news source[43] OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:44, 30 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 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles City Attorney Election, 2009

Los Angeles City Attorney Election, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subtle, yet blatant attempt by a Weiss staffer to get his name out there to voters ahead of the rest of the pack. In that sense, especially since it was obviously created by someone affiliated with Weiss, this violates WP:ADS. Actually, this article should be speedy deleted under CSD G11. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Poorly written, fails WP:ADS. Willydick (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Creator of this article added Jack Weiss' campaign web site as an external link to Los Angeles City Attorney, even though he is not the current City Attorney. IMHO, this is clear evidence that the creator is working on behalf of Weiss' campaign to promote his candidacy. FYI: I reverted that edit on the article. Also, I have no axe to grind against Weiss, nor am I a resident of the City of Los Angeles, so I can't even vote in the election, so this is not based on anything other than Wikipedia's policies. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain i am not sure whether this special election to a local office is notable--it is a significant office in a major city, as municipal offices go. As for the spam, I dealt with it by editing. Fortunately, there's a reliable NPOV reference. DGG (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Considering that no one is talking about that election here in the LA area yet (media, buzz around the street), I'd say it's not notable yet. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This an election taking place this year - as opposed to other elections for which we have articles that are years away (e.g. United States presidential election, 2012; United States presidential election, 2016). The election is going to happen and the article cites only candidates who have already declared, so there's no problem with WP:CRYSTAL. NPOV problems can be dealt with by editing. The only issue that's left is whether this election is itself notable, and given that it's an election (as just mentioned) this year, I lean slightly towards retention. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep LA is bigger than some countries, so though this would not be a significant level election in almost any other city, it is probably significant enough to be included in a not-paper encyclopedia. Spammy content removed. Sourcing available. Not a matter of "not notable yet." The import of the office makes it notable. Query, I thought Gmatsuda was not in LA? Anyway, anyone concerned with this being used as an election campaign tool should keep an I on it. Or give me a ding, and I'll have a look at it. Dlohcierekim 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am in the LA area, but do not live in the City of Los Angeles, so I am not eligible to vote in this election. Don't even know anything about any of the candidates, nor do I care. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It's an election occuring this year for a key politcal office in a major city. There may not be much to say about it yet, but at some point this election will warrant an article, the only question seems to be when, and since there is already information, albeit scanty, from a reliable source, it seems like now is appropriate.Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Millander

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

Non-notable character in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Was a corrupt judge who only made three appearances on the show--not enough to make him a minor or recurring character in my opinion. No third party sources, no reason to believe he's any more notable than any other murderer from any other episode. Redfarmer (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a suitable article or list of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree were this a minor character but three appearances total on a show, two of which were simply minor appearances as a judge, that has been on the air for nine years hardly constitutes including on such a list. As you can see from my edit history, I've been redirecting and tagging such articles tonight and I simply do not feel that this character even warrants being included in a minor characters list in the grand scheme of things. He's not one of the notable arc-long murderers so there is nothing to distinguish him from any other murderer in any other episode of CSI. Redfarmer (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect Not enough for an article. Lacks real world significance, but might help flesh out a minor character list. Dlohcierekim 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Let that article discuss the level of detail. Probably won't be more than a sentence or two but that's all the in-world information that's necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. This particular character was one of the few criminals to appear in multiple episodes and his appearance in the first one was significant to the development of the show. Calling him a minor character really isn't accurate. Also, the idea that a character needs real world significance to be included at all (whether separate article or in a list) would leave significant holes in coverage on fiction. It is verifiability that should be key. If there's a lack of sources describing the character, then he can be merged in the list (actor information and number of appearances with a shortened plot summary). That solution would be in line with policy and not require deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claire's Unnatural Twin

AfDs for this article:
Claire's Unnatural Twin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A band that fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. 2 albums on a small, non-notable label (possibly self released). Searching pulls up nothing of of substance. Of the references in the article, one is a dead link and searching shows the band isn't mentioned in the other. While the previous AfD was no consensus back in Nov 2005, the criteria for notability has come a long way since then.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable and unsourced. Jofakēt (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm afraid I did not see an assertion of significance in the article. I did not find any non trivial RS Online. The online source I found was from Wikipedia. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete via CSD A7. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punching mercury

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

Willydick (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you've gotta be kidding!!! half the stuff on here is crap that no one even cares about, so why not let me add to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colortunumba (talk • contribs) 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete-No Notability established. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should be noted that, as of this comment, no rationale has yet been posted for deletion. I will leave a note on the user's talk page. Redfarmer (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD A7, article admits that band is not significant. Already tagged. Redfarmer (talk) 03:03, 30 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. Userfied before deletion. MBisanz talk 02:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

911 Missing Links

Absolutely do NOT delete this entry. Whether you agree or disagree, this entry relates to a valid topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.26.165 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

911 Missing Links (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable conspiracy google video. Blatant spam but admin refused speedy delete. Peephole (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Phaser901, the original author of the Wikipedia article in question. It most certainly is not "blatant spam". The article is intended as information and summary on a significant 911 conspiracy-related documentary. Please detail to me how I should move this article from "spam-grade" to acceptable? What sentences in particular are problematic? I have outlined the subjects discussed in the film. They can easily be confirmed by watching the content of the film. Also note that it is not a Google Video release, the primary dissemination is through the official website. This is similar to other popular Internet releases such as Zeitgeist; GV just happens to be popular for viewing. Also it is not "non-notable" as it discusses topics both inside and outside the scope of current 9/11 conspiracy research. There is little "retreading on old ground" as is found on many Loose-Change like releases. Phaser501 (talk)

  • Withholding keep or delete opinion, as the author has asked a very cogent question and shows a desire to improve the article to meet wiki standards. At the very least, the closing admin should seriously consider WP:USERFYing the article back to its author in the event of a delete being upheld. To the author, I strongly suggest finding and showing sources that show notability... that is, reviews or commmentary about the film from sources not related to the subject... and not from blogs. Bring in reviews from major sites, either positive or negative to show real-world interest in the film itself. Feel free to ask for my input, as I am not familiar with the film, but am so on what Wiki expects for an article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable and reads like a news release. Jofakēt (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided for this article are worthless; two are simply links to the video itself, and two are links to blogs. None of them provide any form of noteability and they all fail the sourcing guidelines. Jtrainor (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please WP:USERFY this back to User:Phaser501/sandbox/911 Missing Links. It may yet gain sourcing that meets wiki's standards and he might bring it back then. No need to chase of a contributor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : non-notable. Locewtus (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra Speedy Delete This has no place on an encyclopaedia. Yossiea (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Web directory. MBisanz talk 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blog directory

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

Article appears to be pure OR. Tagged as needing references for over six months with no real improvement. Jonobennett (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unreferenced, OR, doesn't add anything that can't be said just as well with "Blog Directory". -- Vary Talk 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Web directory. The Blog directory article has no references and appears to be original research, and it can be mentioned in Web directory without needing a separate article. —Snigbrook 13:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per vary. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources. --Peephole (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, no sources.—Sandahl (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Web directory. This is a likely search term, but a blog directory is nothing more than a web directory that specifically targets blogs for inclusion.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  07:13, 31 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 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAB Fight Song

UAB Fight Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
SDSU Fight Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Articles consist only of the lyrics of songs apparently hollered at sporting events, though they don't even say which sport. I'm assuming basketball. I'm sure lyrics of songs don't belong on Wikipedia? roleplayer 00:46, 30 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 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtside Seats

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

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-charting indie. No significant 3rd party notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:35, 27 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 00:32, 30 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 Heavy Heavy Low Low. MBisanz talk 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Heavy Low Low EP

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

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-charting indie. No significant 3rd party notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:37, 27 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, 30 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 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle Nipple and the Toxic Shock

Turtle Nipple and the Toxic Shock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-charting indie. No significant 3rd party notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:38, 27 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 00:29, 30 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 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lingolook

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

In my vision, it appears to be a non-notable product. The article was previously deleted as spam; Google brings up over 800 results of "Lingolook Flashcards". I didn't see any news articles about this product, or any source that makes this article pass inclusion. I wasn't sure if this was actually notable enough, so I'm taking this to AfD. SF3 (talk!) 03:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems notable to me. The idea of producing a phrase book as flashcards seems to have attracted some attention, and the translation of this to an iPhone app some more still. Useful sources: [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. Yes, a couple of those sources call themselves blogs, but they are professionally edited blogs (i.e., magazine sites posing as blogs because blogs are more trendy these days), and so can be considered reliable sources. JulesH (talk) 13:49, 25 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, 30 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 Jak and Daxter (series)#Future of the Jak and Daxter series. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 11:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jak and Daxter IV: The Lost Frontier

Jak and Daxter IV: The Lost Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We know of this game solely through a nearly three year old patent of a title. Nothing more. Naughty Dog has not released any posters of the game, and certainly not through Jak 3 concept art. What this article refers to is known as fan art. Fake trailers aren't proof either. They're, unfortunately for the cause, fake, and certainly have no business being on Wikipedia. This game has no proposed release date. 12/31/09 is simply a placeholder date used by gaming websites. HQ (talk) 00:25, 30 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 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JessiKa Violet

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

I can't find any secondary source coverage for this model - nothing in gnews (except for a mention that may not be her, and has zero to do with modeling), or anything that shows up in ghits that indicates she is in any way notable according to WP:BIO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:31, 25 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 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. -- Vary Talk 01:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails notability guidelines for people. Matt (Talk) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: FAILS notability guidelines for people. She is an amateur model, and should not be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.248.150 (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Fails, as per nomination. -- 209.135.77.138 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Chapman (actor)

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

Having an uncredited role in Star Wars and producing a music video for Christopher Lee (the horror! the horror!) does not satisfy notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 25 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 00:25, 30 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 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Nieto (martial artist)

Rafael Nieto (martial artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Six trivial mentions in Google News. Claim to fame is creation of Zen-Do, a non-notable form of karate that appears to be taught solely by Nieto. (When searching, do not confuse with Zen Do Kai.) Unreferenced stub tagged since 9/2007 w/o improvement. THF (talk) 13:51, 25 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, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • week delete - The sources need adding for the championships which would swing it but it needs a cleanup . The newspapers seem to be using him as a goto reference but none of them is about him. --Nate1481 11:49, 30 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 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liana White

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

Nothing to distuinguish this from many other murders; while tragic and shocking Wikipedia is WP:NOT a WP:MEMORIAL. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 25 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, 30 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 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gliceas

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

Unnotable Neoglism coined by a couple of students. DFS454 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Not a neologism - it's a real word ("Tá gliceas i gceist anseo agus na polaiteoirí ag iarraidh dallamullóg a chur ar phobal na 26 chonta") but totally non-notable as a player name or internet name. Such would only achieve notability if found to be used by someone notable in their own right. In that case, they might merit a single line. Peridon (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to appropriate Wiktionary project. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note author has removed substantial material of neoglismic nature diff --DFS454 (talk) 21:41, 25 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 00:21, 30 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 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BEST HYDRAULIC SECTION

BEST HYDRAULIC SECTION (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be either an instructional guide/manual or textbook-type material (sole purpose is to teach a method for doing something). Falls under Wikipedia is NOT a textbook/guide/manual. Declined prod, reasoning was "this is a mathematical procedure for solving a legitimate engineering problem," which is exactly what guides/manuals/textbooks do and not what you should have in an encyclopedia. Cquan (after the beep...) 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete from the title, to everything, this is an all around bad article. Tavix (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I deprodded the article, with the rationale which is given above. I fail to see how is this article different from N-body problem, Dijkstra's algorithm or Moment distribution method, which are all about "methods for doing something". Granted, one thing that is different is quality - no dispute about that. The article needs major cleanup work in all areas starting from the title itself, but these are not sufficient grounds for deletion. GregorB (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT a how-to guide. Merge any relevant material into the general discussion of such problems, wherever that is. (Also, is this article a copyvio?) AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also thought that it looked like a copyvio but there are too many spelling errors. :-) GregorB (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that it's hand-copied from the cited source. Even one of the technical names (Chezy) is mis-spelled. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:39, 30 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 Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement. MBisanz talk 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manzoor Hussain Parwana

Manzoor Hussain Parwana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

COI (author is subject), vanity fluff piece for self-author of dubious notability, attack piece against other parties Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:02, 25 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 00:17, 30 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 West Baltimore (MARC station). MBisanz talk 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Seeley

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

Man with gun arrested; news articles don't even mention assassination. Minor news item for the day, no lasting coverage, fails WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS. Only an incidental relation to West Baltimore (MARC station), so merge is not appropriate. Contested prod. Jfire (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect: I know nom says merge is inappropriate. But the West Baltimore (MARC station) article already contains the info, thereby making a change to a redirect as the right thing to do. I had created this title only as a redirect on that day, but someone later changed this into an article of its own. Though over time importance seems little, on the day of the incident, this was the main news, and was described on the televised news as a "presidential assassination attempt," giving it the perceived importance as a major event. Sebwite (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But with the passage of time, it became clear that this was simply a man with a gun who got arrested. There was no assassination plot, there was no "proclamation" as West Baltimore (MARC station) currently claims without source (a WP:BLP violation). It was just an arrest which happened to occur at the station. Arrests happen every day in thousands of locations; we don't mention every one in the articles on their locations. Jfire (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you watched the televised local news that day (which I did), they portrayed it as an assassination attempt. They also described that trains on the line were stopped as a result of this incident, and interviewed the cab driver involved and other witnesses who stood on the platform and called 911. Sebwite (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See policy WP:NOT#NEWS and essay WP:NOTNEWS. Also fails to establish notability per WP:BIO and [[WP:N}]. We do not create an encyclopedia article everytime someone is arrested in possession of a gun. Edison (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as you notice, I support reverting to the redirect I originally created this as for that reason. Sebwite (talk) 02:19, 26 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 00:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to West Baltimore (MARC station). This is where the event involving him occurred, and really the only suitable article. While this is a single event involving the subject, it received widespread televised news coverage on the day it occurred, as it was considered to be a possible assassination plot, and trains were stopped as a result. Also note that this title was originally created only as a redirect to West Baltimore (MARC station). My original intent was to keep it that way unless a fair amount of more information came in the media, and that never occurred. Sebwite (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this user already !voted merge/redirect with a similar rationale above. Jfire (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All possible assassination attempts of heads of state are notable. NOT NEWS does not mean that no current news item can be included; this will be part of the historical record, which is part of the general reasons for inclusion.DGG (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was not an assassination attempt. Please review the sources. None of the news reports cited claim it was an assassination attempt, and if there were any that did on the day of the event (I can't actually find any online), they were quite simply mistaken. This was just a random arrest of a guy with a gun; it will never be a meaningful part of the historical record. Jfire (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't say it was, said "possible" . Actually reading the main source, it reports that he said he intended to kill the president. Yes, it also says that " the incident was not perceived as a serious threat to the president's security" [56] DGG (talk) 15:22, 31 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 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paterson Black Sox

Paterson Black Sox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete semi-pro teams are not inherently notable, and there is no evidence of notability Mayalld (talk) 21:11, 25 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 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 31 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. WP:CSD#G7 - author blanked page; no keep votes cast J.delanoygabsadds 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd baqar

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

fails notability Waterjuice (talk) 00:13, 30 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 02:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class Editori

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

Deleted once as copyvio, this version is a directory entry with no formal assertion of notability and no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't have time to go through the 743 Google News hits at the moment (particularly as Italian is about my eighth language), but there's a good chance that there's enough there to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 26 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, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject of lengthy article in BusinessWeek and extensive coverage in Italian press (e.g. [57], [58], [59]). Gr1st (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That article just mentioned is enough by itself, and certainly is supplemented by the other material found. given the ease at finding material at Google news, it was careless to nominate this without looking. We really ought to require such searches for all afds where notability is in question,.DGG (talk) 19:22, 31 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 02:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sopa de agnollini

Sopa de agnollini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete non notable soup recipe, both for lack of notability, and because wikipedia is not a recipe book Mayalld (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Brazilian Cuisine which has relevant sections. While it doesn't seem wildly notable, a handful of Google hits verify its existence [60]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to delete - I was thinking "no harm done", but re-Googling in the light of ArchonMagnus's comment, considering the possibility of misspelling, it looks majorly non-notable in its lack of mention even in Brazilian sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable soup. Possible redirect per Gordonofcartoon. Matt (Talk) 23:58, 25 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 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think this is notable enough and (at present) shouldn't be included in WP. I may reconsider should there be a significant increase in the article content relaying any sense of notability. Per Gordon's comment: while Google hits relay a bit of information, they alone cannot be used to establish notability. —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 19:57, 30 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_30&oldid=1081071265"