The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 16:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Jameson Snodgrass[edit]

James Jameson Snodgrass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have not found evidence that James Snodgrass has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of him, hence I believe the article does not met WP:BIO. Plus, I do not feel it passes WP:ACADEMIC either. Allventon (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find nothing whatsoever on Google books or Scholar. The PDFs linked to as references are indeed valid federal studies, but those do not establish notability in any way. §FreeRangeFrog 00:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not established. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. The concerns about sourcing are real, but even when properly weighted I don't see a consensus to delete. WP:N is guideline which must be applied "with common sense and the occasional exception," and I can see no consensus below to apply it strictly. Further discussion might result in a clear consensus but I feel that that is most likely after sufficient time has been given to see if more sources emerge, or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Chicken (bar)[edit]

Dixie Chicken (bar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable local bar. DRV allowed new version to stand for new review, but still completely unnotable. The ring dunking section is overly inflated, and an A&M tradition that can occur anywhere, it isn't unique to this bar. Tradition itself is already covered elsewhere. This bar itself has not had significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Out of the 19 sources in the article, 10 are all local papers: the local newspaper, a local TV channel, and the university newspaper. Of the remaining sources, 2-4 are directory type works that mention the bar in passing as part of promo-type blurbs for A&M university. Five is another trivial passing of someone's blog-type report of their trip through A&M. The Playboy "award" alone does not establish any actual notability, nor does Bush's minor mention in passing. 8 is another trivial mention. 10 is a piece by a guy from College Station talking about his pending return trip there. 15 is another directory listing, and again mentions the bar in passing.

Entire article is full of nothing but local trivia, with no actual claim of notability for the bar beyond what it iself claims and the minor Playboy award. Was deleted in an [that concluded on 28 January 2009], and immediately recreated by an editor who works extensively with A&M articles. The recreation was allowed to stay in a DRV despite deletion being endorse, without prejudice to be renominated again. Again, this bar completely fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Local sources are not "reliable, independent secondary sources", directory listings are not significant coverage, nor are passing mentions are not significant coverage. Per the company notability guidelines: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." This has not been established here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 3. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV allowed you to recreate it, it does not protect it from renomination (as you yourself agreed on the article talk page), nor did the DRV say anywhere that this version was notable. Indeed, the deletion of the original was endorsed. The only thing the DRV endorsed was that this version of the article was sufficiently different to be reevaluated on its own. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Establishment is clearly notable amongst locals and people acquainted with College Station. Obviously CNN isn't covering the joint, but it's a viable search term that real people would look for, and the article itself is a reasonably well-developed work in progress. Townlake (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local notability is irrelevant. If all notability required was a few local people to be acquinted with something, we might as well have articles on every last business every formed anywhere and tons of local "celebrities" because, hey, their local paper covered them! Except, that isn't how Wikipedia works and this is NOT the College Station Wikipedia (despite the efforts of various A&M editors), it is the English one. As such, notability requires significant coverage in third-party sources, not just local papers. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSB is all about protecting "local notability"... whether it the Phillipines or Texas. Local reliable sources covering a local landmark are eminently suitable. Not everything in Wikipedia made headlines in New York Times or Washington Post. The article is not about every last business ever formed, or even about one which had a "mention" in a small town paper... it's about one that has an incredible amount of coverage. This argument should not be about the author, his interests in Texas A&M, or College Station. Its about the quite well covered Dixie Bar. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Playboy Magazine, of which the Dixie Chicken is the subject, is a reliable source and verifies its notability. In addition, comments on the subject by; Austin American-Statesman, Yale Daily News, ESPN, U.S. News & World Report and many other reliable sources have also verified this notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions, again, do not estbalish notability, nor does ONE single relatively minor article on the Playboy website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your opinion of Playboy Magazine, and the many other notable reliable sources listed, these are notable and reliable sources. If you have sources that state otherwise, please add them to the discussion. The article is clearly notable and well sourced - If there is any evidence otherwise you should share it. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one said the sources are not reliable, but that does NOT mean they can establish notability when the bulk of them are local (and in this case, considering Austin is a neighboring town, it is still relatively local/regional. The article is NOT clearly notable, not matter how many local sources you stick on it. Nor are the sources all notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is clear. As stated above, the article in Playboy Magazine, of which the Dixie Chicken is the subject, is a reliable source and verifies its notability. In addition, comments on the subject by; Austin American-Statesman, Yale Daily News, ESPN, U.S. News & World Report and many other reliable sources have also verified this notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec'd) You and I simply view the current sources as providing different levels of confidence in the establishment's notability. I'll look forward to seeing what others say. Townlake (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if President Bush has mentioned it in a speech, that is probably good enough along with the other articles to establish notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. I would agree that the guidelines in place on notability are sometimes to generous but I think most bars would have a hard time putting together the kind of resume for notability that this one has. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of non-local sources indicates notability. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 19 sources, many nonlocal. Mentioned by the ex president. This is too easy. AfD hero (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep Improved article per notability asserted and repeatedly shown. Even Texas can have a few notable things... though I'm half expecting to see The Alamo at AfD next. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texas has tons of notable things. This small town bar is not one of them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per others. Articles only need to be non-trivial if the references themselves are used to establish notability. Trivial mentions are perfectly acceptable to verify article content. There is more ways to establish notability beyond the WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is established by WP:N, and all a subject guideline can do is establish a grace period on the basis that WP:N will eventually be satisified. This article doesn't even manage that, as it doesn't pass WP:CORP, and the third-party sources are primarily trivial. The Playboy reference is the only non-local source that comes close to being the significant coverage necessary to satisfy WP:N. It is, however, only one source, and it takes multiple sources to pass WP:N.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Along with Playboy Magazine, there are many other notable reliable sources that verify this subject's notabilty. Please see; Texas A&M University Press, KBTX-TV, The Washington Post, Yale Daily News, The Eagle (newspaper), The Battalion, ESPN, Austin American-Statesman, and U.S. News & World Report. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to point to significant coverage in any of those that isn't a local source?—Kww(talk) 01:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are all local sources. They are all in english, and North American. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The use of sarcasm doesn't improve your argument.—Kww(talk) 11:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable from the sources. Artw (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Many of the provided references are incidental and not substantial; they could happen at any bar anywhere (and probably do), and therefore aren't any substantiation of notability for this establishment. The cited Playboy reference looks notable--but isn't, since it isn't actually an award and is a dubious off-topic notability claim. (That is, if a magazine about bars declared the place the bar of the month, that would be meaningful; Playboy is not an authority on bars.) -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the spirit of collectonian, kww, and mikeblas. The sources given aren't sufficient to pass WP:N. A trivial mention from the president is still a trivial mention. Local sources aren't enough to justify wide-scale notability. A monthly award from Playboy magazine is the only thing the bar has going for it, and restaurant reviews are not what playboy is well-known for. A centerfold model in Playboy is notable because that's what the magazine is known for and that's its specialty, but since Playboy magazine isn't the Michelin Guide, the review can't be used as the sole indicator of notability. Themfromspace (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Playboy (the US edition) does routinely comment on university campus culture and hotspots - while I agree this isn't what the magazine is best known for, the mention is in keeping with what the magazine covers and the audience it talks to (for those who read the articles). Not to over-focus on that one source, and I do agree in no way is the mention an "award". Townlake (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Multiple sources have shown the Dixie Chicken to be notable. While there is not a featured New York Times article on the Dixie Chicken, this does not take away from this establishment's notability. Clearly, due to multiple reliable sources and clearly stated notability, this article should be kept. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post these sources? Themfromspace (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more information, check the references section, Google News and Google Books. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's posted the list above. He doesn't seem to recognize that, with the exception of Playboy, they either fail to provide significant coverage, or are local to the bar. I'm not sure that badgering him about the list is much more productive than his constant insistence on the notability of the bar. The reasons the sources fail have been pointed out numerous times, and he has pointedly ignored or belittled those arguments.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have been noted. These are your opinions, you are entiltled to them, but they are not facts. These are Wikipedia:Reliable sources and they have clearly estabilshed notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They may be reliable sources, and they do satisfy WP:V, but the argument is over WP:N, which they don't appear to satisfy. Themfromspace (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your comments but I strongly disagree; these are reliable sources that clearly establish notablity. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please go through them and indicate for each one why you believe that they constitute a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken Bar or are not primarily concerned with news coverage local to the bar? Then at least we'd have something concrete to disagree about.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to review these sources. These reliable sources are directly relevant, please review each of them. Also, please note any problem you have with them. These are reliable sources, you need to state why you believe they are not reliable. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When have I ever said they were unreliable? I said they were local (i.e the Austin Statesman, KBTX, the Battalion, the Eagle) or passing mentions (So, as is customary, the crowd then migrates off campus to the back porch of the Dixie Chicken, a popular saloon, for the next step of Ring Day protocol: ring dunking. from US News and World Report, One Friday night, just after the stroke of midnight, the Aggies practiced in a parking lot behind the Dixie Chicken, the students' favorite local watering hole that claims it serves more beer per square foot than any other bar in the U.S. from ESPN). I'm granting you the Playboy source. Please indicate just one other source that is not local coverage and is a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken bar.—Kww(talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources are reliable. There reliablity and notability are well estabilished. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to assume that the reason you won't point out a source that is not local coverage and is a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken bar is because you can't find one. I didn't ask about reliability. I didn't ask if the sources were notable. I asked you to point out a source, aside from Playboy, that was not local that contained a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken bar. Since you are able to understand English, my question was straightforward, and it has been explained to you multiple times that no one is questioning the reliability, I have to assume that you are being deliberately evasive. I hope the closing admin takes that into account when evaluating your argument.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 18 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 13:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evansville Trading Post[edit]

Evansville Trading Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)</includeonldumass :Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 12#Evansville_Trading_Post|View log]])</noinclude>

Just an ordinary little store in a small village. Nothing notable about it. Student7 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The notability required is absent and the references do not assert notability. --Stormbay (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete There is no way for us to establish notability for us because the article lacks sufficient sources about the paper rather than loosely-related people, events and organizations. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORP. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Eagle (newspaper)[edit]

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

Unnotable local newspaper, which is actually named The Bryan College Station Eagle. Fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Per the Handbook of Texas - The Eagle became a daily in 1913. Bhaktivinode (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...but what has that to do with whether it is notable? The paper itself calls itself by both names, but The Bryan College Station Eagle is what it uses on its website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep Notable Texas newspaper. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your evidence is? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As Collectonian and I have had disagreements concerning notability since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Freda back in 2007, it would be helpful if this article could be reviewed by 3rd party editors. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bhaktivinode, you had not edited this article before Collectonian nominated this article for deletion. How on earth could there be any conflict of interest here? I suggest you strike your comments, which appear to be made in bad faith. Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your concern for Collectonian. Also, I appreciate the consistant presence the two of you have had on my talk page for the past two years. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was mentioned in the handbook of Texas. Does that handbook list every single newspaper in the state though? It doesn't have a large circulation. Is every newspaper on the planet notable, or just the ones with a large circulation? There should be a set limit. I doubt you'll find newspapers giving third party coverage to each other, so that notable guideline would make no sense. Dream Focus (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it pretty much does mention a town's local paper in the city history articles where there is one. It doesn't, however, have articles on every paper, just the most notable ones. Note that there is no article for The Eagle at all, while there are some for many other papers in Texas, even a student paper[1] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP per WP:CSB. A regional paper is notable and of service to the people in its area. That a Texas newspaper that has managed to continue operating for almost 100 years may not be notable to someone in another state or country does not remove its notability. [2] & [3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSB is neither a policy nor a guideline, so it is not applicable here at all. Please actually show notability for this paper (and it is not a regional paper, its a local paper). Shall we also have articles for local power companies little monthly magazines? Sales papers that are shoved in people's mailboxes every week? Etc? Usefulness and being of service has nothing to do with notability. The paper is not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be so dismissive of my opinion, as systemic bias is a real threat to the improvement of Wiki as an encyclopedia with a world-wide readership. We are not talking about power company mailers or sales brochures, and if articles are written on such, they will be dealt with at that time. We are speaking HERE about a paper that was founded as a weekly in 1889 and became a daily in 1913. It is reasonable to expect that this may have had some historical import as Texas expanded and grew over the next 120 years. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources about them, yes. JulesH (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Reliable independent sources establish notability, and at least one has been mentioned already. I find it hard to believe that none of these would be an appropriate source. JulesH (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The newspaper's circulation is very low, and it has won no awards. I don't think this meets the Notability criteria. Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The expansion, most prominently the awards won, appears to meet the notability criteria. Karanacs (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Schmidt's expansion. Clearly stated notablility and verified by multiple reliable sources. Bhaktivinode (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RightAnswers, Inc.[edit]

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

Advertising. The only assertion of notability is that the company is "the largest provider of technical support content for internal IT departments" however I can't find anything that bears this out. pablo_hablo. 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this AfD was incomplete. It has been fixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Corporate advertisement. §FreeRangeFrog 05:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think they meet WP:CORP. I've added some sources, some of which are not reliable for establishing notability, but provide backup information (press releases). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  09:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fits the profile: yet another online consulting business with an article written in vague, evasive, and promotional buzzword language: RightAnswers also provides help desk and knowledge management solutions to capture, organize, and enhance an organization's knowledge. The added sources would appear mostly to be copies of press releases touting deals made or the business's growth: not really independent or non-company-generated sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertisement. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A well-sourced ad is still an ad. No information to show that it passes the notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability seems established and the article can be rewritten to address concerns about its focus. Canley (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 6 Youth Movement[edit]

April 6 Youth Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is not notable and has had a notability warning tag since January. Stub contains a single sentence and does not provide information about the actual movement other than the very basic top layer of it. Article has no backlinks (other than a bot's log archive) and has a single source.

Article does not recite why it is notable nor why the reason for the movement was notable.

A number of users joining a Facebook group can hardly be considered a reason for notability as users joining a Facebook group don't necessarily support the group's ideals. Alpha 4615 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the reference from the New York Times is quite a good one, and would normally be enough to assert notability for any group. -- role^player 23:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree with Roleplayer, that's more than enough to establish notability. There are thousands of Facebook groups, but very few are mentioned anywhere outside of blogs or Facebook pages. §FreeRangeFrog 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with Alpha. It seems like the main focus of the article is to explain what/who the FaceBook group is, when (assuming by the title) it should be more about the movement itself (why the strike is occuring, etc). Phaux'' (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Facebook group that got the attention of the New York Times doesn't have a notability problem. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps it's a better idea to cover the protest and mention the group. I don't see how we can expand an article on the group without focusing on the protest. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  From reading the NYT article, I don't think it is as possible to separate the two subjects as you are suggesting. It would appear from a cursory glance that the facebook group is the protest. -- role^player 13:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is getting coverage in reliable sources. This may be back at AfD on April 7, but until then its notability is sourced and growing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the group itself has been getting wide coverage in mainstream media, distinct from the strike movement which they support: just added three more refs. MuffledThud (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A difficult one. on the one hand, some serious effort has been put into this page, and it's a shame to see it go. On the other hand, this page is not really appropriate for what is, after all, an encyclopedia. This isn't the first time this type of discussion has taken place (although I think it's the first time the article in question has been so polished), I think this deletion review sums it up best. See also here and the other discussions it links to. There's been a pretty clear consensus over the years that these articles should not be included. I don't think we need a redirect, as it's a rather improbable search term. yandman 09:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close note: History undeleted because of previously and potentially merged content as result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 18; redirect retained. Chick Bowen 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of units in the Age of Mythology series[edit]

List of units in the Age of Mythology series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Largely game guide content with little sourcing other than from fansites and irrelevant mythological research, the latter of which is wholly irrelevant to the context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the sort of combination article that should be encouraged--it's an example of the way we should do our material of these games. Game guide material, which I agree we don;t want to do, is much more detailed than this--but the only way to understand what a game is is to see this sort of brief summary.DGG (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it isn't. This is propped-up game guide material with all the numbers chopped off and stuffed full of impressive-looking references that don't mention the article topic. This is a list of indiscriminate factoids. Some of the factoids may or may not be worth saving to weave into other articles, and that is the only reason to save this from deletion. This is the sort of piecemeal nonsense that should be discouraged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes, one of these again. Transwiki is the best way here, one of the Wikias may benefit from having a detailed summary such as this, but its not appropriate for Wikipedia. This is essentially the same sort of information that turns up in a game's instruction manual on the units, combined with quite a bit of original research; an approach better for the fansites than an encyclopedia. -- Sabre (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was transwikied from the last AfD to here. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I'd support a redirect to Age of Mythology, Nifboy has effectively summed up my views of this list below. -- Sabre (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What's bothering me most is the lack of references in the majority of sections. Isn't it easier to simply link to game guide website instead of attempting a complete duplication? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Valid use of List article, doesn't really consitute a game guide since it doesn't list stats or how to use the units in their strategical context and per DGG. MLauba (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virtually the whole article, apart from the weakly-sourced historical info, consists of information such as "Prodromos' are used most effectively against other cavalry." and "The Scylla is a naval myth unit with the ability to grow extra heads through battle.", which entirely pertains to their use in a strategical, game guide context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — as I said in the previous AFD (also to maintain consistency), the content is explained in a real-world context and not necessarily in a game guide context. However, I wouldn't oppose to a soft redirect to the StrategyWiki page for convenience as well as maintaining preservation of the content (which already is). MuZemike 17:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As AMiB and I have explained above, the real-world context is irrelevant and is merely a rehashing of content that belongs in the respective articles pertaining to the units' real-life counterparts; for example, "During the Roman Imperial age, the Murmillo was a strong class of gladiator.^[21]" explains well enough the role of the Murmillo in a historical context, yet it adds nothing to the relevant context, which is the units of AoM. This is what the majority of sourced content in the article consists of. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: My opinion on the article is largely unchanged from the previous AfD; it provides far too much detail (WP:VGSCOPE) and at the same time doesn't contribute any sort of holistic understanding other than "Faction A has units X, Y, and Z with attributes J, K, and L". I also disagree with the assertion that there's any real-world context here; once you start talking about the historical basis of the units, you're no longer talking about Age-of-Mythology units, you're talking about whatever it is that unit shares a name with. Nifboy (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I vaguely recall WP:VG deciding to mine this for relevant referenced details, merge it to the appropriate AOM games, and dispose of the rest. I'm not in the mood to trawl archives to find the discussion, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, though actual discussion is notably lacking. Hooray for the search bar integrated into the archive template. Nifboy (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki: This article is composed solely of game guide information with no encyclopedic information. The so-called "real world information" is also original research. It should go into an external wiki or something like StrategyWiki.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, it's already been transwikied, so Delete - I don't see how such an obscure redirect will help anything. But if necessary, Redirect.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per DGG. Well referenced article, very well written. Ikip (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per AMiB, it's essentially game guide material wrapped up in references irrelevant to the context. Fails WP:VGSCOPE. I also agree with Zxcvbnm on not seeing where a redirect helps, but I'd be fine with that result as well. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well referenced and well formatted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep DGG has it right. This type of combo article that should definitely be encouraged as a perfect example of how to correctly handle such material for these types of games. Contrary to the tag placed in the article, it doesn't violate Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines... and actually follows them quite accurately. It is not a "cheat-sheet" or a "how-to". It is a properly detailed and coherent list of essential information (NOT minutiae) that would overburden Age of Mythology if merged, and would diminish Wiki and a readers understanding of the parent article if deleted. And Transwiki? The parent article is here... so should be the child. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is information such as "The destroyer is an infantry building with a bonus against buildings; it is also effective against archers." or "They are strong agaist human soldiers, cost no population; however only five may be used at one time.", which the article is largely composed of, notable and of any relevance to readers whom are trying to understand the subject from a non-player's perspective? This sort of information is wholly in-universe and the very definition of minutiae, and holds absolutely no significance in the reader's search for significance. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - previous editor above me has summed it up more succinctly than I could. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In my mind, this is comparable to a "List of Characters", or a "List of Episodes" article attached to a video game/television program article. Both of which, I believe, are acceptable under our current guidelines/consensus. This article is not a guide to playing the game, so that argument is irrelevant. It is not bloated with plot/in-universe information; it is concise, and mostly covers things with appropriate depth. While it may have some instances of excess in-universe content, as they love to say, AfD is not for cleanup! Finally, it provides (mind you, interesting) comparisons with and links to real soldiers/ships/mythological creatures. So there's some real-world context for ya. If the article is ultimately deleted, there is no need to leave a redirect in place. seresin ( ¡? )  10:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't bring yourself to pop a keep at the front of the comment then, could you? ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated before (this is to seresin), the real-world context is useless and irrelevant in this article because the sources only present information relevant to real-world historical subjects, not the in-game units. To compare the information from these sources to Age of Mythology is original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider a biography of the form "James Smith (1975- ) is a farmer(ref:the OED definition of farmer) in Springfield, North Carolina(ref:atlas showing that Springfield is in North Carolina) who grows tobacco(ref:a botanical guide that shows that tobacco is farmed)." The sourcing in this article is of this form, and it's not good sourcing or good encyclopedia writing. WP:NOTPAPER doesn't just mean that Wikipedia isn't limited in size; it also means that Wikipedia is a hyperlinked web on top of being a series of discrete articles, and this article defies that, adding trivial factual claims that should be in other articles and hyperlinked from here. So no, this is not well-referenced, and the only comparison is juxtaposition, because there aren't any sources comparing the game roles of these units to the various units' role in history and/or myth.
  That said, there is value in this article in the hyperlinking, to understand that these units are based on historical or mythical figures, even when you strip away the specious, badly-referenced factual claims about history that belong in the target articles anyway. What we're left with once the game guide and specious historical/mythical facts are stripped away is an interesting linkfarm that does increase understanding of the game as a whole, on a project where link-only lists of stuff that appears in a game are generally frowned upon. "Guns of [historical shooting game]" are routinely deleted, even if every single weapon is a historical one, and this is no different. Yet, this list does have the same value such lists of weapons or areas or whatnot would have.
  Ultimately, I'm conflicted on whether we should have an article at this title; it wouldn't ever be a good encyclopedia article, but it would have some value in listing the myths referenced by this game series. Something tells me WP:VG has already made the general decision on this sort of list, and that decision is not to do it unless there's something you can say about the game other than "X, Y, and Z appear in it." By the same token, such lists are rarely deleted, because they can be mined for a smerge into the game/series articles.
  For these reasons, I think this should be userfied/projectified, while WP:VG either decides to change their standards for "List of X in Y" or decides on what to mine from this to put into other articles. Ikip or A Nobody would probably be willing to accept this in their userspace if nobody else is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, this article does have several references. And for additional referencing, you could always look at the official game manual. This article is fairly well written.Smallman12q (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did anyone say it doesn't have references? We can't base an article on primary sources alone, it has to have real-world context as well, that of which in this article is very weak for reasons I have explained above. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge and/or redirect, not keep: I've softened on this article, because there is some interesting information about the units in the lead, and the article passes the bare threshold of notability. But Wikipedia does WP:NOT cover every notable topic. This article violates WP:VGSCOPE's general rule against lists of weapons, which is based on an amalgam of WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE, and WP:NOT#DIR. Basically, we should summarize the notable concepts within any game, but a complete and detailed list of units is simply a violation of policy-based standards of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. If there is limited support for merging or redirecting, then deletion would be fine by me. Randomran (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge - Excessive detail regarding in-game minutiae. SharkD (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Age of Mythology. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - perhaps not a game guide entirely, but a level of detail not needed for understanding of the game. A list of units in any game is a level of detail that is prohibited per WP:VG guidelines; just because there's some factoids about where the units came from in history does not mean that this gets a pass. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Admirable effort has been put into making the game itself a featured article, which covers everything this list's preamble does and more, that part is duplicative. The list itself is exactly what WP:GAMECRUFT #6 refers to, it's surplus to requirements and falls between two stools - it's deliberately brief to avoid being a gameguide but at the same time does little to expand on the basic rock-paper-scissors system already explained in the main article. That leaves it as a list of internal links to articles which are about the mythic creatures etc. themselves, not their relationships in this game. Anyone who wants that is more than capable of using the search bar, the argument that they're based on real or mythical entities and therefore it's valid is bunk. It's exactly the same situation for the civillization special units in Age of Empires II and a very large number of the units from Age of Empires III. For instance, I'm playing as the Russians in AoE3 ATM and had no idea what an Oprichnik or Strelet is, except that I do now because I just looked them up - no list involved. This list is nicely presented but when it boils down to it there's no real purpose to it. Players wanting to know what is effective against what have their manuals or in-game descriptions anyway and anyone undertaking research isn't going to find the answers on this list. Someoneanother 18:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Merge and delete and WP:PRESERVE (a policy, which trumps guidelines), as it seems information has moved around as such deletion is not an option in this case. Merge discussion can be held on article’s talk page. Article is consistent with our scope of coverage on games and an encyclopedia is essentially a reference guide, so it is consistent with what we are. No real reason to delete beyond “I don’t like it”. Article actually meets disputed WP:FICT as well by having multiple third party references cited. In any event, deletion is an extreme last resort and is not even a real option in this case. Moreover, I had tagged this article for rescue on the 13th, and apparently one of the deletes occurred after being asked by another editor to in effect disrupt rescue efforts for articles I tag for rescue (note it was the ONLY AfD that user commented in following that talk page post on either the 13th or 14th). I hope that this talk page request is not what brought the “vote” here, i.e. rescue efforts will be frustrated because of who’s attempting them rather than because of the actual validity of the rescue efforts, but it may be worth keeping an eye out if there is some kind of trend that suggests otherwise. In any event the article is consistent with what Wikipedia is and passes our scope of inclusion, which is generally favorable to lists of units. No reason really to delete as it unquestionably passes all policies and guidelines with flying colors. Also, “cruft” is never a valid or legitimate reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The main arguments seem to be "Keep, the references are sufficient and the form is pleasing," "Merge/userfy, some of of this content is dross and/or this is not an appropriate form for this content, but we can find a use for it in other articles," and "Delete/redirect, there is no content here worth saving that is not already present elsewhere." None of these are incompatible with the GFDL or with WP:PRESERVE. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The last one is per the GFDL in that it seems that content from this article has shifted among other articles as well and as such we need to maintain the attribution history. As far as WP:PRESERVE goes, because the content is not libelous, not a hoax, not a copy vio, but is backed by a variety of sources, we should preserve it in some capacity whether it's kept as a separate article as I believe to be best, or merged elsewhere, or redirected with the edit history intact. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument to delete is that it is redundant, duplicative of other articles, fails various clauses of WP:NOT, and/or original research, all of which are called out specifically in WP:PRESERVE (never mind that PRESERVE's list is far from exclusive).

  As for content which has been merged, I don't think any such content exists, unless you can point to any. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The majority of third-party sources this article is backed by, as I and several others have explained several times before, are those which are impertinent to the article's subject, and merely provide redundant information on historical subjects, which belongs elsewhere on Wikipedia; this is exactly why we link to pages such as Hoplite and Minotaur instead of rehashing such information into different contexts. Take this historical info away, and all you have is a weakly-sourced game guide (see examples above), which constitutes as original research (which fails WP:PRESERVE). Wikipedia is a place to find reliably-sourced information on a subject, not user-written guides for game players to find out which in-game unit is compatible with what. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't buy that so called game guide content is problematic. A reference is after all a guide. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not redundant or duplicative, because the list section seems unique to this article. It passes WP:NOT because it is not all in-universe and because it is cited in non-primary sources it is unoriginal research, which means it meets PRESERVE.

  Some of the out of universe content has been merged to Age_of_Mythology#Units and Age_of_Mythology#Reception and back and forth since at least August of last year if not sooner. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, by redundancy I was referring to the information which cites historical sources, which provide no information relating to AoM and therefore do nothing but duplicate information which should belong in articles for the historical subjects that the sources cover. An example excerpt is "The word Juggernaut refers to any force, metaphorical or physical, that is regarded as unstoppable or unconquerable. [9]", which belongs in the Juggernaut article, not here, as it provides no proof that the AoM unit was named with regards to the historical/nominal subject. Without this unsuitable information, all that is left is information such as "The Mummy is a dual ranged/melee myth unit. Its special attack instantly kills any human unit and turns it into a minion. Minions are fairly tough melee units, but die after one minute." and "Like other cavalry units, they are good against Archers, but the Jarl in particular also has bonus damage to myth units", which is wholly unsourced (sans a few unreliable cites from the Age of Mythology Heaven fansite) and nothing but OR.

  The only reliable citations in the article are a few in the lead, from several reviews of the game. This is hardly an indication of the necessity for a separate units article, though; at most, such info can be merged into the main AoM article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Nevertheless, there's no reason why at worst we wouldn't merge and/or redirect with the edit history intact. I see no compelling urgency to redlink the article or delete its edit history. The article works as an effective spinoff or sub article of the main article and is a good navigational tool for fans of the game to find links to article on major mythological topics, which means having this article provides a means for those interested in the game to actually come across and learn about thse aspects of mythology. Thus, the article serves a beneficial educational function for our community. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This article does little other than cater to fans of the game for reasons I've explained above, and there are existing lists and other methods to locate mythological articles on Wikipedia. As Someone another explained above, it is more than easy enough for players of the game who are interested in subjects depicted in-game to type the subject's name into the search bar and find the appropriate article, which is much more likely to happen than them finding this article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  These so called fans are members of our community, volunteer contributors and thousands of readers. Everything we cover "caters" to someone, whether it historians, biologists, musicians, or gamers. Sure there may be other lists of mythological topics, but here those specifically interested in the ones covered in this game have a convenient list that will broaden their horizons accordingly. So, long as 4,000 readers a month believe the article worthwhile and we know it is not nonsense or libelous, I say let those editors continue to improve it and let us continue to provide our readers with something that matters to those who actually will use this article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of whether information is useful to someone, an encyclopedia should provide comprehensible and reliable information for everyone, something which original research and guides fail to do. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, but this content is not original research and nor is it purely game guide. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  How? Where are the sources to prove otherwise? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In published books and reviews of the games. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  All those two links seem to provide is irrelevant information/criticism pertaining to the main game itself, which can be adequately covered in the Reception section of the main AoM article; and strategy guides, which are useless because, although (sometimes) provided by a professional and reliable source, they add nothing to the real-world context and provide no meaningful information to anyone whom has not played the game. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually they provide critical commentary on the units in the game, i.e. real-world context and meaningful information that can be used for a reception section on this article. The strategy guides are especially useful because they are a professional and therefore reliable source that contains meaningful information to even non-gamer players. I typically look at game guides prior to actually playing the game to learn about it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Then such reliably-sourced information should be added to the relevant sections of the main Age of Mythology article and only split when it becomes evident that the information can sustain an article of its own. What is here at the moment is either poorly-sourced or redundant and should therefore be deleted. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What is here is sourced interesting and useful information that meets our inclusion guidelines and policies and will be kept or merged at worst as there is clearly realistic potential for improvement. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletre per not (game guide). Eusebeus (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PERNOM is an "argument" to avoid in deletion discussions, especially in this case when it has been proven inaccurate, i.e. when it is apparent that it is not actually a game guide. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that but I actually wrote per not; however I agree with nom as well. Eusebeus (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What doesn't consist of redundant factoids about history, legend, and mythology violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Deor (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article however does not consist of redudant factoids and actually is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Moreover, due to the merge that took place back in the summer, it cannot be deleted per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument, however, is wrong!
      Empty gainsaying doesn't accomplish anything. Perhaps you could offer some examples of encyclopedic content in this article, or offer ways in which its problems could be addressed? If this isn't deleted, it'd at least help me figure out what to suggest to WP:VG to do with this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) AN, either supply some diffs to back up your assertion about "the merge that took place back in the summer" or shut the hell up about the GFDL. Deor (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are pretty obvious from the previous discussion and this and the main article's edit histories, which hopefully you read. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • MY argument is 100% spot on! :)
      • Deleting this article accomplishes nothing. The way to improve this article is to go through the various sources available in the Google News and Books results and to improve the article accordingly. Since this discussion will likely close within a few hours, we can do that after it closes at our leisure. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Improve the article in what way? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Use the secondary source for additional out of universe context, maybe restructure so as to have a reception section. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia should include information only when it can be sourced, not the other way around. If it was otherwise, WP:RS, WP:OR, etc., wouldn't even be policies.
            • Also, on the subject of the GFDL, the article can be redirected if necessary to attribute contributions; we are discussing whether such information should be present in the live version of the article. I think that pretty much addresses that.
            • And Deor, please assume good faith. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The content has been moved around from here with at least Age_of_Mythology#Units, which also is at worst a logical redirect place. As there is a logical merge/redirect location, that discussion should have been held on the article's talk page. Look, I think you can make a reasonable case for a merge and redirect. I think it should be kept, but if that's a middle ground, compromise, okay; however, I am not seeing anything to suggest that this should be redlinked or that there's something dangerous in the edit history. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • What secondary source? As for reception, I daresay we don't need a reception section composed of cherrypicked quotes from reviews of the games; such nonsense would be high on the list of dross that will not survive a merge; what critical reception that is chiefly about this topic and not merely the individual games do you have to offer? This is the put up or shut up stage of article writing; I'm not interested in counting coup over the number of Google hits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, unfortunately, this discussion has descended into a back and forth that is needlessly preventing us from doing what we can with the sources to improve the article. It is a bit much to be expected on a volunteer site to simultaneously argue in defense of the article and play games editing as well with some who are only going to be arguing against rather than helping the effort to improve. Because the discussion will close tonight, and it's clear it's a no consensus, we should probably stop arguing and instead either see what we can do with the sources and work together or move on. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • All you're arguing now is that deletion of unsourced content is unconstructive, which I've explained already is not true (per the policies). You're free to contribute reliable sources, etc., to content where applicable, but unsourced content should be omitted until that is done. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There is, however, sourced content in the article that I am arguing to keep. I am saying that we should incorporate additional out of universe content and references. Wikipedia is a work in progress with no deadline. Once we have something that is at least somewhat sourced with potential established we either merge what we can and leave a redirect with edit history intact so that when editors want to revise and reference further they don't have to just start over. I have come across articles that have been unreferenced for years and yet I referenced them after that time and did so because the article existed. I'm not great at starting articles, but I can help reference them. With regards to this article, I am currently going through it for grammar and format and hope to return to it source wise. The sooner we're done going back and forth here, the sooner, we can return to improving this content and discussing how best to go about doing so. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The policies explicitly forbid inclusion of unsourced content. It's completely fine to use your user page, etc., to process and improve potential content for articles, but what is made live must follow the policies, regardless of how likely it seems it can be improved in the future. We are not building an encyclopedia by including information which isn't encyclopedic; encyclopedicity (that's not a word, but whatever) being defined by the policies and guidelines. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Well, then when all else fails WP:IGNOREALLRULES, because deletion is an extreme last resort. And we are not simply an encyclopedia, but also an almanac and gazzetteer. This content is of the list format one would find in an almanac and consistent per our first pillar with a specialized encyclopedia, but more so than anything else is exactly the kind of stuff I believe makes Wikipedia relevant, i.e. rather than a print encyclopedia, Wikipedia contains these kinds of articles that are helpful in an educational setting for students who say play this game and are learning about mythology. An instructor can point them to this article a la "See, you're game touches upon history, now follow these links for more information about the other uses of these concepts. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Nonsense. Deletion is a normal, everyday practice wholly supported by policies agreed as normal by the vast majority of the Wikipedia community, and not merely an "extreme last resort", as you put it, to hide libel and copyrighted material from public view. Your viewpoints go against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia's workings, and you'll have to change the enforced policies before you'll have any chance of practising things differently for this article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Deletion of hoaxes, libel, and copy vios is indeed an everyday practice supported by policies, but deletion of encyclopedic content supported by hundreds of editors and thousands of readings goes against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia's workings, because the enforced policies unquestionably support keeping this article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • These policies being? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                              • All of them really. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                • That means nothing unless you can explain why. The only policy which you have cited, with reasons, is WP:PRESERVE, which you seem to be using as little more than a standing point for this "preserve everything regardless of whether it is notable" viewpoint, which I have explained is not how things work at Wikipedia. From here, you have been deviating into a wholly relevant contention over whether the normal process of deletion and cemented policies should apply to this article, weakly standing by WP:IAR in total ignorance of the other major policies which formulate this site. Sorry, but your best bet is to go elsewhere if you're intent on presenting original research. Wikipedia isn't going to change, and definitely not from your assertions alone. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Wikipedia doesn't have to change for this article to be kept. I have yet to see any explanation as to why deletion is appropriate here rather than merging and redirecting at worst. This article should be kept because it is notable, it is verifiable, it is unoriginal research, it is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia concerning fictional topics relevant in the real world. There is as such no legitimate grounds for deletion. All I see is essentially "I don't like it" dressed up as if it's something more but that's all there. This article is what Wikipedia is here for. If you don't like that, then ignore it and work on whatever topics you know about and like. Just because you don't know about or care for this subject is not valid grounds for removing it altogether. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Then I give up. I don't see the point in arguing with someone whom is putting words in my mouth and attempting to shunt me aside in the interests of protecting clearly unsuitable and impertinent information for purely synthesised justifications. Push to allow original research all you want, but the day OR gives way is the day Wikipedia stops being an encyclopedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also an almanac and gazetteer per WP:FIVE. The material is clearly suitable either as a separate article or as part of the main article, because it is unoriginal research. I am not closed minded to the possibility of a merge or redirect with edit history intact, but redlinking or deleting the edit history is unacceptable in this case, partially so because if say four accounts call for deletion in some five day discussion for an article that has existed for months, that dozens of editors saw fit to work on, thousands view every month, and over a half dozen say here to keep, merge, or redirect would be ignoring the wishes of the community and rather imposing a needlessly limited view upon them, but anyway, might as well agree to disagree. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • This article is neither almanac- or gazetteer-style content, so I don't see where you're going with that. Furthermore, "the wishes of the community" is exactly what I'm pushing - the wishes of the whole Wikipedia community, as a consensus, to enforce the policies. There's a disclaimer clearly displayed at the bottom of every page which states, succinctly, that you must adhere to policies and guidelines and that your contributions may be butchered mercilessly with no regards to the effort put into producing it. Frankly, seeing as you've done so little to actually prove this article's content is suitable for inclusion and no-one else has truly contended my points, I'd say policies have established the true consensus. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • This article is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia. The wishes of the whole community tends to support these kinds of articles and clearly there's no consensus anywhere nor here for deletion. The article adheres to the policies and guidelines for the many reasons elaborated on in the previous discussion and in this one by not just me but a half dozen plus editors. No one has proven that this article is somehow detrimental to our project and as such no one has presented a compelling reason for deletion. Those policies that have consensus support this article's inclusion even if at worst it is a merge and redirect with the edit history intact. Seriously, why is it such a big deal? We know it's verifiable, we know it can be improved further, and we know it is relevant to thousands of readers. We don't need anything else beyond those realities. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • How about we strip this down about to one obvious truth: no reliable source, no inclusion. This is incontestable. Look everywhere, ask anyone, if you want evidence of this. I've asserted, pages above, why the sources provided in this article are unsuitable. Now prove to me, with regards to my comments, why they are. If you can't do that, then your argument has no basis. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                              • Interesting breakdown we have thus far; going with just the boldest text that resembles "votes":
                                                • Speedy keep 1
                                                • Strong keep 3
                                                • Keep 5
                                                • Merge 4
                                                • Redirect 3
                                                • Soft redirect 1
                                                • Transwiki 1
                                                • Userfy 1
                                                • Delete 6 (at least two of these said okay with redirecting, although they didn't bold "redirect" and so I didn't count that in the redirect count above)
                                                • Strong delete 1
                                              • Clearly the community prefers a solution other than deletion and perhaps the merge and redirect middle ground is where to go. In any event, the article can be improved further by using these reliable secondary sources, which is why the majority if editors believe it should be included in some capacity and which is where there is no basis for deletion. If you want to meet at a half way point here as reflected by the above reality, okay. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers, numbers, numbers. Consensus is worthless if it's centred around ideas that violate policies, the wider consensus. Despite my repetitive replies to several people's posts above, no-one except you has truly partaken in this discussion on the keep side of things, so I'm assuming they have no deeper points to assert than "not really written in a game guide context".

Point is, the article is devoid of reliable sources, you and others have failed to show how policies support this article, therefore the article is deleted. That's Wikipedia. The end. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were curious, the previous discussion broke down as follows:

Keep 13

Weak keep 1

Very weak keep 1

Merge 2

Transwiki 7

Delete 15

Which is pretty similar statistically to the previous discussion. Do you think perhaps that "despite your repetitive replies" simply suggests you haven't convinced the numerous keeps or merges above that the content is unmergeable of that it doesn't pass our policies and guidelines? In any event, the article contains reliable sources and you have not successfully shown otherwise. Thus, the article will either be kept outright or as a result of no consensus or a merge and redirect, which is indeed the paperless encyclopedia that anybody can edit. The article has developed considerably since nomination with the only new sources added being third party independent sources from Google News and Google Books for content on the game history, importance, and receptions as specifically relates to the units. Surely, at worst this content is mergeable or demonstrates further potential. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is add headings, formatting and a few sources which still show no need for this to be a separate article. There is still absolutely no reason why the little sourced content there is be merged and whatever else purged. This is not a place for synthesis. Stop pretending it is. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 05:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I (and at least one other) am still improving it further. As such, you still are not showing any reason why we shouldn't at worst merge this material. Please do not focus on trying to "win" the argument at the expense of pretending their are reasons for deletion that if ever valid have been or are being addressed. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the policies I've stated before, which clearly state that content should only be included if reliably sourced, the large majority of this of which is not. That means information which doesn't comply with said policies is deleted, regardless of whether it could have potential (this is why there's an edit history).

Anyway, I'm not going to lecture on at you about what seems to be obvious. This is clearly a conflict of interest, which I will address in the morning. Goodnight. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 05:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, when you say "large majority" it means there is still material that is reliably sourced, i.e. keepable or mergeable content. What seems obvious to any one person is not necessarily so to everyone else. Again, the majority in this and they previous discussion argue for something other than outright deletion and the articles has actually improved from the first AfD and now further since your nomination. In any event, I'm surprised the discussion is still open, so hopefully we won't be going back and forth come the morning! So, with that, yes, good night! :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this seems like a reasonable subarticle to have. Everyking (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I like it" isn't a very strong argument. Can you provide reasons for your considering it "reasonable"? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a poor argument, but I'm not using it. I'm saying that the article represents an appropriate form of organization and includes a level of detail suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everyking (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see how this discussion could be so involved. The article is a list of units in a video game - it clearly fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. The sources provided are either game guides/fansites or generic references for mythological creatures that have absolutely nothing to do with the series or the units of the series, so there is nothing to indicate that notability has been established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am surprised it has been so involved as well, as the article clearly passes our video game inclusion guidelines by containing content that is inconsistent with game guides. The sources provides are actually secondary source reveiws of the game from the Google News seach. It gets so many results that it is notable by any reasonable standard. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:00, 18 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} 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poder Paralelo[edit]

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

Deleted from portuguese wikipedia per AfD. pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Poder Paralelo (10 delete x 1 keep, 9 of the ones who vote for delete are brazilians). The basic reason is WP:CRYSTAL. Descíclope (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Descíclope (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To paraphrase the sole dissenter: the article is well-written and has good references, Google has plenty of hits about the soap opera. If it's well-written, has lots of references then there's no reason to delete. Correct me if I'm wrong here, my Portuguese is rusty. You are correct in the WP:CRYSTAL reference, however that establishes that articles about future "things" are valid if and only if they are notable and well-sourced. Is that not the case here? Certainly a major telenovela on the second largest television network seems notable to me, as does the cast. Also, I'm not assuming bad faith or anything but a 10-1 ten-pound hammer delete vote on an article that detailed seems kind of weird. Each project has it's own idiosyncrasies of course. §FreeRangeFrog 23:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Usually you can only be sure about one or two weeks before, when they start airing the commercials about the new soap opera. Several brazilian soap operas are canceled or change their names: it happened a lot on pt wikipedia. That's why people on pt wikipedia hate these articles. It's completely crystal because no one can be sure if it's going to air. I'm not against recreation when/if the soap opera starts. Descíclope (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is definitely crystalballing. No predjudice against recreation if this show ever comes out. Edward321 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: notability not established WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meadows of Dan (band)[edit]

Meadows of Dan (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing in the article suggests that the band is in any way notable. It is also completely free of sources. faithless (^speak) 22:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BAND big time. It's a shame because it looks like they put a lot of work into it, but a lot of text about not being notable is the same as just a paragraph. All those images as well... §FreeRangeFrog 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - is any information verifiable? Bearian (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no reliable independent sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BAND. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Wikipedia:Speedy keep Nominator has withdrawn. All keeps. SilkTork *^YES! 14:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth McCaul[edit]

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

Notability of subject is unclear to me. Also, much of the text appears to be a copyright violation, but main contributor claims source is public domain. HeirloomGardener (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Formerly New York State's chief bank regulator; I don't think every state's chief bank regulator is notable, but there's an argument that New York's is. 150 Gnews hits, though some of those are press releases and judicial opinions where she's not named in her individual capacity. THF (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The article is a part of documenting the New York State Banking Department, which is a state agency with 600 full time employees. The Superintendent of Banks is the head of that agency, and I have included in that article a wikitable showing the Superintendents between 1851 through the present. Elizabeth McCaul is listed there as well as in the infobox of Governor George Pataki's cabinet. These links prompted me to create this article, which includes various sources. I invite HeirloomGardener to improve the article further, and I have tried to meet her objections. In response, she has started this AfD for reasons that are unclear to me. The Superintendent of Banks is the second most visible bank regulator in America. Although large US banks are regulated by the Federal Reserve, large foreign banks, such as the United Bank of Switzerland, are regulated by New York instead because they have New York offices. Hence, McCaul was a leader in recent efforts to make Swiss banks compensate Holocaust survivors. Anyone who regulates $2 trillion in bank deposits and serves in a Governor's cabinet for six years meets the notability test. Although I believe this is presented concisely in the article, I welcome HeirloomGardener to edit the article further. This is not an edit war. Racepacket (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Sources are not independent sources. One is text of a speech given by McCaul, two are press releases, and the last is essentially a copy of her bio from the company's website. This is why I questioned the notability of the subject. However, I can see where New York's Superintendent of Banks may be inherently notable, as THF mentioned above. HeirloomGardener (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 20 New York Times articles which reference her, and I have included footnotes to two of them. Also, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" The other sources include press release from the Attorney General's Office and entities that hosted McCaul as a speaker. Racepacket (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the additional sources and info. It seems to me that notability has been established. I'll switch to Keep on this. HeirloomGardener (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Before people decide to say there are no sources, they might do well to actually look. Of course the author should do it initially. But if other people would do it themselves when they find an article they think not sufficiently documented, we'd get much further. DGG (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you've made your point. Glad to know you never make mistakes. Can someone close this before I get attacked again? HeirloomGardener (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Obvious Keep Lots of news sources. Tractops (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghoulstock[edit]

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

Non-notable event. No hits on Google news archives. The only hits on Google are the group's own website or related blogs and youtube channels. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not notable, not encyclopedic, POV problems, no reliable / independent sources...Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Local Notable, Some reliable Media Press sources, Probably just needs a clean template update Ghoulstock (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there are reliable sources, please feel free to add them. None of the sources you've currently cited could be considered "reliable" as they are all primary sources (from the Ghoulstock website itself) or from blogs which are generally NOT considered reliable sources as there is NO peer review process at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So the screencap of the temporary SouthJerseyLocalNews.com article doesn't count since it's unfortunately being mirrored by the site? It was on the web but the online articles are temporary so it was screencapped, the physical newspaper printing I have. There were also many earlier newspaper clippings about the show but unfortunately those I don't have copies of but they were about the cancellation of the 5th show and the Night of the Living Dead musical. EDIT: I added some more outside sources from 2008 competitions featuring Ghoulstock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoulstock (talk • contribs)

Response It counts, but one article in a local newspaper does not convey notability. And the sources regarding the 2008 competitions don't really apply to the Ghoulstock festival, but rather to a group of people who claim some relationship to that festival engaging in entirely unrelated competitions (a bicycle fundraising ride and a very local film-making competition, in which they did not even place very well). None of these sources asserts notability on a scale required for a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Fine, you win. I guess Ghoulstock isn't Wiki-material yet considering how many of you are so eagerly hopping on the takedown wagon. As for you, WikiDan, I was fine with this when it was civil but you didn't have to get snooty and shove your asinine aside into your last response. Who are you to tell me that 3rd runner up isn't placing very well? Honestly, it was an unnecessary comment and the fact that you are judging the content on Wikipedia only proves why the whole site can be taken with a grain of salt.Ghoulstock (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the criteria under WP:NF is that a film has won an award at a major film festival. The film in question neither won an award, nor was this a major film festival. That was my point. Had the film won the award rather than placing as 3rd runner up, that might have conferred notability, but the placement it received does NOT confer notability. If I sounded snide, I apologize. I was merely trying to point out the facts that were relevant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Verifiable sources very much lacking. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless reliable sources establish notability. I gave up after about 7 gpages of search. Almost all blogs, twitters or youtubes. When there's nothing to be seen in that distance, I begin to wonder if there's anything to see at all. (That's a challenge: prove me wrong. I'm always happy to be PROVED wrong.) Peridon (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porkupus[edit]

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

WP:NEO. No real hits on Google save occasional forum name. • \ / (⁂) 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete!!! This neologism doesn't belong here and cannot form a viable article. Urban Dictionary may be a more appropriate place for this word, not Wikipedia. Valley2city^‽ 21:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-nonsense article ttonyb1 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable yet. May be notable in the future, but it will be costless to recreate then. THF (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable neologism. I was hoping for an article on what you get when you cross a porcupine with a platypus. What a letdown! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. And discuss a potential redirect at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arran Fernandez[edit]

Arran Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)<noincludre>(View log)</noinclude>

I did prod this originally but it was removed. A few issues come to mind really, firstly and most obviously BLP1E. Secondly, further expansion of the article (if remotely possible) would involve including personal details of the subject (a minor). Thirdly, the article content is already viewable on another article . Thanks. — R² 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - To General Certificate of Secondary Education section as mentioned by nom. This is clearly WP:ONEEVENT. §FreeRangeFrog 20:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Reversing. The expansion work done by 86.42.133.228 clearly invalidates WP:ONEEVENT. This is a much different article than the one that was initially AfD'ed. §FreeRangeFrog 21:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect - What they said ^^ - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education#History_and_format, per above. Enigma^msg 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and alter General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education#History_and_format if thought necessary. It is not correct to state that this is WP:ONEEVENT. The subject's examination records set in 2001, 2002, and 2003 were all reported in the international media, as Google News verifies.86.42.133.228 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well not to the letter of the law, but it's one narrow context, WP:ONEEXAM. Remarkable individual, but I'm not sure about the notability to warrant a separate bio at this stage of his academic career. He does have a record, but being sensible, everything necessary to say about him is covered by GCSE. Redirect to the article is ample imo, but it would not be surprising if he does several notable things in years to come. Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that would be against WP:CRYSTAL. ;) — R² 01:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Every qualification and every award in every country in the world has a youngest winner. People sitting exams at a young age are unusual, but not that unusual. – iridescent 01:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are WP:N requirements not met? The spirit of the law on WP:ONEEVENT is surely temporariness? If subject's records, and reporting thereof, came within one week, rather than being spaced out over three years, there would be a case for invoking this, but this is not the case.86.42.133.228 (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm (thinks)... maybe that guideline is a red herring here, because there's something not right about a separate bio. The point at issue is that it's one narrow context, and there's nothing appropriate to add to the article. I think the thing to consider is whether it's better left as the stub it is, or redirected into the GCSE article. It comes down to whether a reader searching for his name or stumbling upon the article would be better served by context of the GCSE article. It's just that a bio is not appropriate, (and) there's no independent notability. Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of biographical details might be addable to the article if they could be verifiably found? I will try to look for some. The subject was the "Person of the Week" on Frank Elstner's chat show on German TV in 2001. In 2003 he appeared on Terry Wogan's show on British TV and trounced mathematics populariser Johnny Ball in a mental arithmetic contest. There are some other bits and pieces too. Perhaps these could usefully be added to the article? One problem is that although everyone seems agreed that this subject's records are encyclopaedic, in the GCSE article as it stands they look as though they have just been parachuted into the "History and Format" section. Thus if the question is which is preferable, to keep this as a stub or to have the information only in the GCSE article, I am not sure that the answer is the latter. I feel that there is scope for improving both articles.86.42.133.228 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine. Keep - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but wouldn't this be WP:THREEEXAMS rather than ONEEXAM or ONEEVENT. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mebbe. 3 times same exam (Had to resit :D). Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No - certainly three different exams, namely the Foundation, Intermediate, and Higher tiers of the GCSE in Mathematics, which each had their own syllabuses and separate examination papers. According to the news reports, he got the highest available grades each time, and did not resit anything :-) (Nowadays, as described in the GCSE article, Mathematics only has Foundation and Higher tiers, having been brought into line with other subjects).86.42.133.228 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. While a record of this sort should certainly be covered in the relevant article, there's not sufficient other material like biographical details to warrant a separate entry. (Incidentally, personal details of a minor are fair game if they're relatively widely published outside of Wikipedia) It should be redirected as a likely search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some biographical details with sources, hopefully improving the article and making it less of a stub. These do not appear in the GCSE article or (as far as I know) anywhere else on Wikipedia.86.42.133.228

I have also added a sentence on the three seven integer sequences he has submitted to (and had published by) the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences86.42.133.228 (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Thanks for notifying me of the deletion notice, R2. In its current version the article is much better than my original effort, now that the context is broader.Carpet chair (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose: remove stub status and keep. I have tried to fix the obvious weaknesses: narrowness of context (restricted to three GCSE records) and apparent difficulties in locating additional material. (I haven't actually removed stub status, waiting to hear how other editors feel).86.42.133.228 (talk)
• Keep. Now expanded, this is no longer dubious under WP:1E or a case for redirection. Content is also sufficient in terms of Croughton-London "rule", so destubbed.158-152-12-77 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States presidential election, 2012. MBisanz ^talk 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third party presidential primaries, 2012[edit]

Third party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Content fork of United States presidential election, 2012, all information on this page is available on that one. I also take issue with the title and its implication that most third parties will be holding primaries (several parties' nominees are decided solely by convention, and the numerous independent candidates on here aren't subject to any nominating procedure). Should be redirected to the election page for now, and recreated as Third party (United States) presidential candidates, 2012 much closer to the date of the election. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is silly.  In the United States, third parties like the Libertarian Party do not hold presidential primaries to decide who will be the nominee.  This is more of a copy of Ron Gunzberger's musings about "potential candidates".  Mandsford (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no editorial need to split or duplicate this material. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect for attribution purposes. The main article did not contain the material about the third party candidates it does now when the supposed spin-off was created. Thus the article was either merged without redirecting, or such a redirect was undone. Deletion would lose relevant edit history. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Super-speculative, and thir party primaries don't even exist. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012[edit]

Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Content fork of United States presidential election, 2012; all the information on this page is also available on that page. Should be redirected there for the next two years or so, then recreated when more information on the primaries and candidates becomes available. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's truly no new content in the subarticle, then redirect. But I don't see the point in holding people off from fleshing out the article for 2 years or whatever... I seriously doubt I'll join them, but if they want to add valid, sourced content... might as well let them. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I created the article (initially as a redirect); under no circumstances do I think the article qualifies for AfD. If anything, it should be a redirect, but I personally think that this article is a keep. With some work, this could potentially be a valuable addition to WP's series on the upcoming presidential election. United Statesman (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has the potential to be valuable; it just doesn't have the potential to be valuable today. Although the information concerning the "Ohio plan" looked promising, the April 2008 blog page noted that it was non-binding and that decisions would be made at the GOP Convention. If anything came of that, it's not in this article. While I realize that at some point in the next two years, dates will be announced for which states will have caucuses or primaries on which Tuesdays (Jan 10, 17, 24, 31; Feb 7, 14, 21, 28; etc.), this article makes up for its lack of something concrete with pictures of people who might run in those primaries. No reason to put a foot in the door unless you've got something to sell. Mandsford (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I vote to keep the article.Ratemonth (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Hysteria Majoreditor (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not currrently notable, nor will it be for two years. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a stub. It will expand as coverage does, but the topic is already notable the predictions are well-coveraged by independant, reliable, third-party sources. Themfromspace (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wired Desire[edit]

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

Based on the following searches:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, therefore the band doesn't comply with the notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They tour with Nazareth, more notable than many bands. An article entitled "Wired for sound" by Chris Sweeney in the 11 July 2008 The Sun (a British newspaper), said "Young headbangers are turning the clock back - and giving old-school rock 'n roll the kiss of life." and later "The guys have also been on tour with legendary Scots rock veterans Nazareth - who reckon Wired Desire are their best support act ever." An article by Kerry McKittrick in the 27 August 2008 Belfast Telegraph Derry Edition p. 15, said "Wired Desire are playing at the Spring and Airbrake tonight. These Scottish rockers only formed in 2005, but are already gaining a reputation as the pioneers for a new generation of rock music." I understand that there exist, but I do not have citations for, other published articles about them in the British music press. --Bejnar (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impossible to verify claims from here as the above references listed are not online. Not all physical libraries have the Belfast Telegraph Derry Edition. A search through the Google News archive turned up nothing, not even for The Sun. JamesBurns (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Belfast Telegraph Derry Edition is available on Lexis/Nexis if you have access to an academic library nearby. I would like to see a copy of the October 2008 issue of Classic Rock Magazine from which amazon.co.uk quotes with regard to their first album. --Bejnar (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I can confirm the (short, 392 words) "The Sun" article through access to NewsBank via my local library, though it is the only significant coverage to be found there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V does not require sources to be available online or in all libraries, only that they exist and for it to be possible for readers to find copies of them. And I think 392 words is quite long for a Sun article... they use large print and have most of the page taken up with pictures. As an example, their current headline story on the web site ("84 dead in Oz bush fires") is 394 words. Another front-page story clocks in at 226 words. I'm not sure, but I believe their writers' guidelines are to keep stories as short as humanly possible. JulesH (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not the article to discuss it over but whether The Sun is a reliable source is another thing entirely... JamesBurns (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 19:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unable to verify claimed sources. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the nom's search results show that this isn't notable. Themfromspace (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privatelektro[edit]

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

Unknown group of artists with no reputation or noticeable success. Basically an advertisment, written by some member itself. Also nominated for deletion in Wikipedia DE. --Niabot (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: self-publishing artists on their own online digital label. Insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One would think a notable rock label would recieve significant coverage in the news, but this label only has 6 references in google news. And they appear to be trivial mentions. Themfromspace (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• NON Delete This is no rock label and not only a digital netlabel. please read before writing. this article already stayed here for more than 2 years, only a german contributor says this is nominated for deletation in germany. he maybe not like to expand this kind of music in wikipedia. please read reviews on the pe site and on english ambient review sites (http://disquiet.com/?s=privatelektro) and http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&domains=neural.it&sitesearch=neural.it&q=privatelektro&btnG=Find. Sinuswelle (talk) 02:49, 17 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 - subject is notable, even if the article itself is in a very poor state, so please expand it and use the corresponding talkpage to discuss possible improvements. --Angelo (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haman Stadium[edit]

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

Looks pointless to me... Tarheel95 Talk T-H (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Are you familiar with WP:STUB? Also, your personal opinion of the article is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes it is a stub and needs substantial expansion but it is also notable as the site of at least 2 major football tournaments in that country. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep No reasonable need to delete.
• Speedy keep. No reason for deletion remotely resembling anything in deletion policy has been offerred. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - an article "seeming pointless" is not valid grounds for deletion. GiantSnowman 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - a project this size/kind will have sources covering it by its very nature. Agathoclea (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Inflight Entertainment[edit]

Emirates Inflight Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy for this was declined. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, and looking as previous AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Lounge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Airline Services, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Airline Cabins, this is no different. Issues this advertarticle has include is the IFE really that notable? There is nothing asserted in the article which gives it notability. The article is totally unsourced, so it does not comply with our verifiability policy, and is already covered at Emirates_Airline#ICE, basically making this an advert fork. Looking at it again, I am somewhat inclined to contact the admin who declined and raise it with them, but it's easier to bring it here and hope that Emirates fabulous peanuts isn't the next advertarticle created. Russavia ^Dialogue 18:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Speedy, actually, on all of them, before the peanuts one is also created. None of them are encyclopedic in any way or merit anything beyond a blurb on the main article. This is a case of implied notability by wiki-association. And the creator is not an admin, BTW, not that it would have any bearing on the AfD. §FreeRangeFrog 18:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if really necessary it can be injected into the article about Emirates Airlines. Otherwise not really notable to merit its own article. Valley2city^‽ 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The article claims that "Emirates was one of the very first airlines to offer all class personal entertainment systems. With its introduction in the early 90s, it has been an Emirates policy since to fit all seats with inseat screens and an entertainment system." Now, 'one of the very first' is clearly weasel wording that cannot be properly substantiated. If however, they are the first, than that's clearly of historical significance. Also, if the second sentence is true, they introduced something significant to airline inflight systems. Of course, neither is substantiated, but that means at leas the article has a problem with verification rather than the notability cited by the nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot. Page has been redirected to Nephilim as a spelling variation, and as a redirect AfD lacks continuing jurisdiction. I can't spell it the same way twice myself, and I like the band. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nephelim[edit]

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

Created by an editor recently given an indef block for OR, this seems to be an almost unique spelling for Nephilim - I guess it could be kept as a redirect in case someone mistypes, but then we'd probably want to create Nefilim as well. The lead even spells the name a different way! Neither Google Scholar nor Google books seems to have this as a relevant spelling. dougweller (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no third-party sources for nomads called Nephelim. The second section of that article is just the passage quoted in the Nephilim article. This might be an attempt at a hoax. I would probably keep the redirect to Nephilim as it seems to be a common misspelling. §FreeRangeFrog 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nephilim. To judge by the Google hits, it seems to be a common enough misspelling. Nefilim (about something else) already exists, with a hatnote directing readers to Nephilim. Deor (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nephilim. As a side note, for a case like this I think an AfD is overkill, I would favor in cases like this, just making the page into a redirect...no need for discussion. Cazort (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finger Circle Punch Game[edit]

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

No reliable sources (I have looked) to establish notability, simply being mentioned in a Mike Myers movie is not enough. kelapstick (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Complete lack of notability other than in the fiction of the film. We need a new CSD for "fictional games I want to share with everyone which I think are funny and but are really not". §FreeRangeFrog 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable or non-existent game — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article appears to be simply a description of the rules of the game, violating WP:NOTGUIDE. Also borders on WP:NFT violation. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Kuyabribri. Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Punch Buggy" got by with a lot less than what I have put forth here. That was mentioned in The Simpsons, so that's acceptable for wikipedia? This is a real game, no different than Beer Pong, Punch Buggy, paper football, etc. Not sure what is needed to prove that. "Games made up in one day"? Find me a game that wasn't invented in one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munch606 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Punch Buggy actually has reliable sources cited as references.--kelapstick (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentNot sure what you're looking for as sources. How about this?
    • http://www.circlegame.org/
    • http://www.fox.com/malcolm/journal/206.htm
  • .--User:munch606
    • The first is a WWW site whose author is not identified, and so whose reputation for fact checking and accuracy cannot be determined. (How does the world know that that WWW site is the truth? It's not as if there's never been a joke WWW site full of false information before.) The second is a work of fiction and not documentation of the factual world in any form. Fiction is not fact. Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and CSD G3. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vice President of the Confederacy of Independent People[edit]

Vice President of the Confederacy of Independent People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:MADEUP position in a WP:MADEUP country. If bits of the USA had decided to go off and do their own thing we would have heard about it Ironholds (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Absolutely. If there are no new sources, it's not a legitimate item. Opus33 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Nom.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't say it any better than the nom. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Just piling on that consensus. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BOLLOCKS. Per WP:Articles for deletion/President of the Confederacy of Independent People, this is apparently a rip-off of Confederacy of Independent Systems; uses the same logo. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William V. Harris[edit]

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

Failed CSD even though article did not back up its assertions of notability. This person is non-notable and the article lacks references outside of a single website. -- smurdah^{[citation needed]} 17:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Where independent sources exist, a neutral article is possible to write (neutral in the sense of reflecting multiple views on the subject--see wp:npov). Where a neutral article is possible to write, deletion is not appropriate. In this case, the Mellon citation, though rather breathlessly written, seems to be an independent source. I imagine that others exist. Deletion therefore seems inappropriate here. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article may not include reference for it notability a simple google search shows several published books Gnevin (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perhaps, Speedy Keep. "William R. Shepherd Professor of History, Columbia University" meets WP:PROF, and the books confirm it. This material was already in the article when the speedy tag was placed, including the Bancroft Prize for one of the books. DGG (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per arguments above. Cazort (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Gnevin Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry if I did not get everything right on the first round -- but I have little doubt that WVH should be on Wikipedia. Thanks, ZsV --ZsVarhelyi (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZsVarhelyi we have no intention to WP:Bite you . Sometimes users have content disagreement you did nothing wrong and I hope this will not discourage you Gnevin (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, [4] Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Gnevin's argument is not really valid (it's not publishing books that makes one notable, but the influence/impact that those books have). However, besides that there's the award, named chair, and AAAS Fellowship. Meets multiple criteria of WP:ACADEMIC as nom could easily have checked. I suggest that nom withdraws the nomination to save us all time. --Crusio (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Ancient literacy, currently in more than 750 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Also meets WP:PROF criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic Implosion[edit]

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

Non-notable album of non-notable band (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odious Mortem)... Searching for this album brings up only 3 mere mentions... fails WP:NALBUMS... Adolphus (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable release WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conjoritory[edit]

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

WP:NEO -- smurdah^{[citation needed]} 16:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is either a non-notable neologism or WP:MADEUP. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Zero Google hits. Strong evidence for it being a non-notable neologism or made-up. Sketchmoose (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cazort (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT/WP:NEO. I make up words like this all the time but don't add them to Wikipedia. Maybe I should start a WP article called "List of words made up by KuyaBriBri" </sarcasm>. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. NAC. JulesH (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Investors Chronicle[edit]

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

• Delete - Non-notable "investment" magazine. NJGW (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn, see my last comment below. NJGW (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not sure what's with the scare quotes as this magazine, run by the Financial Times, is quite clearly about investment. We're talking about a publication which has been produced on a weekly basis for nearly 150 years. Clearly, over this long history, there have been plenty of sources written about it, although finding them between the hundreds of sources that simply quote text out of it will be time consuming. One useful source would probably be this biography of Brendan Bracken, a former owner of the magazine. Other sources include Temple First Steps in Shares, Michie The London Stock Exchange and other books similar to these two. JulesH (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the case, but it has to be established with sources. I nominated it because it is very similar to the MoneyWeek article, a publication which is on WP's blacklist for spam. They seem to have the same scope, but this one has less circulation... so if that one's not notable this one may be less so. If you can find sources that's good. The history may be the only interesting thing about it. If no sources showing true notability can be found though, perhaps it should simply be merged into Financial Times. NJGW (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Money Week is on the blacklist for spam because so many spammers link to it, not because it isn't notable. (And actually, perhaps we should reconsider it, because it also has suitable material for non-spammers as well. We should instead go after individual mis-use.) They are notable, and so is this. A 33,000 circulation in the uK is v. substantial for a publication of this sort, & equivalent to a larger circulation in the US--they are essentially different spheres of the world in this respect. If we're going to go my comparisons, the largest 5 or 10 publications in each subject area in each individual country should have articles. DGG (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, let's have some sources besides just the circulation numbers. Something needs to establish that this warrants it's own article. NJGW (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, according to one source, I added circulation was once twice as high. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article meets WP:BK criterion #1. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does BK apply only to books? This isn't a book. NJGW (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Financial Times publication, into which judging from the website a lot of work and attention has been put. --Mr Accountable (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The nomination has obviously fails WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current refs which have been found are still only tell us about the circulation, a few lines about history, and are directly covering the parent company. Still no direct coverage of this topic has been shown. I was going to withdraw this nom when I saw more refs had been found, but when I read them I saw that they are not yet convincing. Suggest you also look over the article and read it's refs and decide for yourself if they are really enough. NJGW (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is an article with the headline "'Investors Chronicle' put on sale by Pearson" not about the subject? And notability is an attribute of the article subject, not of the article as it currently exists. Looking over the article is not the way to determine notabilty; looking for sources, such as these and these is. Please don't ask me to identify specific sources amongst those. I'm not going to read them all to identify exactly how many thousand of them are independent and reliable and have significant coverage, because it's just as easy for you to do that as it is for me. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the three books I gave details of above? Sure, they may be about other topics, but they do include non-trivial coverage of this magazine while doing so. JulesH (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources before didn't assert notability, but this one does. I have withdrawn the nomination. NJGW (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (non-admin closure). Per calling and observance of WP:SNOW. Alpha 4615 (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ejection (sports)[edit]

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

The article has been tagged requesting verification for over a year and has not been done. Thus finding reliable sources to verify the information has failed. Pinkkeith (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:SOFIXIT. The concept is well-known in sport, and a scan through official rule books and news articles would easily confirm the notability and influence of ejections on athletic events. There's no deadline for completing Wikipedia articles, so I don't understand that part of the nom rationale. Townlake (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My rational comes from reason for deletion point six. I would also like to see a list of these scans so they could be added. --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Townlake. The Major League Baseball rule book was easy enough to find. Other sources should be also. Rklear (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, inherently notable subject. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Inherently notable subject. I don't know what WP policy establishes a time limit on when articles need to be cited but if there is one pls point it out to me. MLB official rule book is easy to find online; FIFA, NFL/CFL, and NBA/FIBA should be just as easy. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is definitely a notable practice in sports. Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and snowball. It's good that the lack of sources has come up. I'll link to the football ones now (actual football that is played in that other place called The World :D ), and obviously there will be secondary sources on sports sections of the reliable news sites. Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW applies. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Confederacy of Independent People[edit]

President of the Confederacy of Independent People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

See WP:MADEUP; a fake position leading an organisation that doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure if "regions declared their social secession from the United States" there would be something on the news Ironholds (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NFT. Not verifiable, no reliable sources, and so on. Townlake (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Until legitimate news sources are cited, we should treat this as the output of the author's imagination. Opus33 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & others.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Looks like either a hoax or something made up one day. Either way, it doesn't belong here. As an aside, am I the only one to notice that their "symbol" looks like the side panels on a TIE fighter? Umbralcorax (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close, check the infobox for Clone Wars (Star Wars).--Cube lurker (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Is it starting to snow? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball delete --Explodicle (T/C) 18:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete made up hoax probably from someone who believes Wikipedia is like MySpace. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like something a bored middle schooler created (created at 11AM, says the president has to be at least 13 years old). No sources, hoax. If any regions of the US did try to secede, that would be major news being reported on all the news stations and online. TJ Spyke 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clearly there is consensus to write about the incident, although it does appear that "hoax" may not be perfectly applicable to this situation. Move/rename discussions should occur outside of AfD as consensus for that came later in the discussion, and hasn't been shown. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Figge[edit]

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

• Delete This article was written because it seemed that the woman had accomplished a significant "first" in human achievement. Now that this is known to be untrue, the incident is not notable. If, however, reaction to the inaccuracy of the reporting becomes notable, a new article might be written about that. --DavidK93 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Edgehead5150 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep (article creator) - Yep, I got duped too. But even the controversy of the reporting has become notable by some very reliable sources like The Guardian and others.[5][6][7]. An example of journalists believing and repeating any press release that's shoved in front of them without critical analysis. --Oakshade (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but maybe create an article about the hoax. --JaGa^talk 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if "hoax" would be the word for it. Exaggeration would be more accurate. --Oakshade (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Shrug* your second source called it a hoax, but no matter, they were probably just having fun with the title. The point is, I think the exaggeration is more notable than the, er, exaggeratrix. She was notable when we thought she'd swam the Atlantic. Now we know she hasn't, boom, non-notable. But the story about the story is notable, IMO. --JaGa^talk 22:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that source has the word "hoax" in the title. But even the text of that story doesn't support it being a "hoax." I think a hoax would be a complete fabrication, like she didn't swim in the water at all and then showed up in Trinidad prompting a press release saying she "swam the Atlantic." Even the "hoax" article says the 250 miles she probably did swim "is nothing to scoff." --Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jennifer Figge controversy or Jennifer Figge misrepresentation would be more neutral WP:NPOV than hoax, in my opinion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and never, ever speak of this again. Keepscases (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. She's getting a lot of media coverage (695 google news hits doesn't tell the whole story, she's on TV a lot as well). She could be the next Rosie Ruiz. If, in 6 months, she's utterly forgotten... then I might want to delete this. But we might as well keep it around so people can work on it now. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This represents a major media SNAFU, and is notable on that account. Giving a person international coverage for something she didn't do is notable in its own right. 99.246.90.33 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She may not have done exactly what it was advertised she did, but still it's a notable feat. Besides, she's getting a lot of media coverage, as pointed above. --Waldir ^talk 00:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep She may have not done what was reported, but the controversy that erupted afterwards makes her notable. She still swam a lot of the atlantic ocean, and as noted above, is getting ton of media coverage. Myzou (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case the controversy is notable, not the person. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- She's already become notable thanks to her original (now debunked) claim. The media frenzy covering what is now known as something that didn't quite happen will only enhance that notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Jennifer Figge controversy. She's only notable for this hoax/controversy, so we should cover the event not the person WP:BLP1E. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, as interpreted by WP:NOTNEWS. Deor (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an interesting enough hoax, to be notable, I think. It fooled MANY mainstream news outlets, and the error is pretty egregious. I'm open to debate about how to name the article--I think that it's more appropriate to have an article focusing on the hoax itself, than focusing on the individual. But I do think we must keep the material. Cazort (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly move to a title describing the controversy rather than the person. This can and should be rewritten to be an article about a hoax per WP:HOAX. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. First of all, several people are calling this a hoax--it's not a hoax, it's a misrepresentation. Secondly, this shouldn't really about the miniature media circus--that clearly falls under WP:NOT#News. I would argue that Jennifer Figge and Benoît Lecomte should both be merged to an article called Swimming the Atlantic (or something similar) that would discuss both accomplishments and the difficulty in assessing them (and the fact that they have often been called something which is inaccurate). Chick Bowen 03:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and/or/but move to Jennifer Figge controversy Vartanza (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Jennifer Figge controversy or similar. The controversy itself warrants an article, but the person does not. —David Levy 13:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move per above. She's notable (now) but only as part of a larger event. Themfromspace (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ruoff[edit]

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

Article is about a college athlete who is otherwise not notable except as a member of a particular team Student7 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete College athlete. As per nom - Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- As per the logic in the previous AFD. While he may fail WP:ATHLETE, he does meet the general notability guidelines, having coverage in multiple independent sources, thus rendering WP:ATHLETE moot. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This guy has EXTENSIVE coverage in news sources. Hundreds of articles (over 700 recent ones?) in newspapers and 50,000 google hits spells notability for me, no matter how un-interested I personally happen to be in college sports. Cazort (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. The previous AFD was barely a month ago. Nothing has changed. No new argument for deletion. No attempt to go to WP:DR. Waste of everyone's time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Previous AFD conditions have not changed. The references provided clearly show this person to meet the criteria of notability. WVhybrid (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused - Is it that US College Basketball is especially popular? Or that he is especially brilliant? Do they all get that much coverage, and does WP:ATHLETE apply or not? - Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Is US College Basketball especially popular? Simple answer is yes. Is it more popular than NBA basketball, probably. I'm sure we could get a lively debate started on that subject, but it should be done somewhere else. WVhybrid (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Thanks for the pointer. Exactly! He is not a WP:ATHLETE and therefore should not be covered.Student7 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oic - He is an athlete but doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. That's what I thought. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE is onw way of establishing notability for athletes. Not the only way. Please read the page more fully: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. . . Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get that. Hence why I asked the other questions. Why does he get that much coverage and do all college basketball players get that much?- Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some do, some don't. It depends on the person. LeBron James for example, was getting plenty of stories about him while he was in high school. So, while he didn't meet wp:ATHLETE, he certainly met the general notability guidelines, and thus including him was permissible. Same goes for this guy. He's gotten enough press that, even if he hasn't met the requirements set under WP:ATHLETE, he can still be considered notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think this discussion has hit on why I defended this article. Ruoff meets the general criteria per WP:N (The fact that I am a fan of his play may have helped a bit B-) )

All the positive press he has received around the country has made him notable by the criteria of this organization. I didn't set the criteria, but I took am glad to use that criteria to defend this article when it gets hit with AfD and now, AfD2. WVhybrid (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, ty. Lots of hits - no point arguing with his general notability. Keep - Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bowes[edit]

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

• Delete nn biography Mayalld (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no verifiable independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Almost a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, but I suppose the assertions of touring and TV and radio appearances get past that, although they are very vague. None of the Google News hits for the name seems to be about this Kevin Bowes, and this autobio doesn't mention anything that would be likely to result in notability, although it is nearly five years old. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caspar von Winterfeldt[edit]

Caspar von Winterfeldt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A minor film executive--and 'executive' may be stretching things--with much name-dropping and little suggested notability, nor sources testifying to same, apparently self-created (by Casparvw (talk · contribs). A prod tag was added, but was removed by the article creator, with the only changes being the removal of the list of celebrities the subject has 'worked with' and the addition of a press release and a SEC form. CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find no notable sources outside individual credits and minor film-industry sites. ; Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:BIO. The whole thing is written to imply notability when there is none to be had. §FreeRangeFrog 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not DeleteThank you for the heads-up regarding the process of deletion. I have checked out a number of the peers who have contributed to the Wikipedia community and can see no more "notability" than illustrated here. Caspar von Winterfeldt has produced several films which have themselves won awards and achievements which can all be sourced at the respected IMDB website. For industry buffs, he is also included in the 'Studio System' and has been listed in numerous websites pertaining to filmmakers. 'PLAYED' which Caspar von Winterfeldt produced has been released in many different languages and countries around the world and was premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 2006. The film starred Val Kilmer, Gabriel Byrne, Vinnie Jones and a host of other notable talent all of whom Caspar, as the producer of the film, hired and 'worked' with. Wikipedia is attempting to compile an encyclopedia of members of the film and acting community under the Wikiproject: Actors and Filmmakers. How is it possible that this then cannot include individuals like Caspar von Winterfeldt who has not only acted in films alongside notable talent but also produced them and subsequently won awards with them, such as the Washington DC Best Picture audience award for 'Raw Footage' or the Hollywood film festival Best Picture award for 'Played' or the Palm Springs Best Picture award for 'Gypsies Tramps and Thieves'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.156.99 (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Only contribution. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's not really useful to compare yourself to other people that have Wikipedia articles about them. There are many others that probably shouldn't be here, but we deal with deletion one article at a time, and here we are discussing your article. If anyone (including you) wants to nominate for deletion those peers that have no more notability then we will discuss those separately. What would be needed to keep your article are references to publications such as newspapers and magazines that have written about you - not simply listings in directories such as IMDb and AMG. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.I wasn't comparing myself to my peers nor putting in question their notabilty. Caspar von Winterfeldt has created artistic and cinemartic products which have entertained the public at large worldwide. This is verifiable. The first award his films won was the young filmmakers of the year award presented by Esquire Magazine under its Celluloid Style Film Prize in 2004, for his film 200x1 directed by Eva Husson. This is verifiable - http://www.afi.com/Docs/about/annualreport/AFI_AR_04.pdf. If his work as a producer is worthy of inclusion (Played) in the Wikipedia film archives then I argue an entry regarding the individual who was behind the project and produced the project should be included also and deemed notable: If you haven't seen the film here is a trailer.... http://www.spill.com/Movie-Reviews/MovieReview.aspx?Name=Played&VideoId=391814. Perhaps this discussion will also help to shift the focus back on producers, who support and seek to finance the visions of directors and strive to produce entertainment which will satisfy an audience. When things go right, often the director or the actors are given the spotlight. However, there is a reason the producer picks up the Best Picture award at the Oscars, and why it is the last award given. If this page is deleted, then it is done so without the interest of the public at heart. For it is they who research your pages to discover information and will potentially be stumped to learn more about an individual that has created something that interests them. The information on the Caspar von Winterfeldt page has been verified. It is concise and informative. Also, to suggest that IMDB is a mere directory, suggests little knowledge of the industry which relies on the information on that website as much as researchers may rely on Wikipedia. This is why when you google any notable individual or project related to film, the first entry will almost always refer you to IMDB. It is a premiere information source and contributions to the site are strictly controlled. Perhaps this is also why 95% of all notable biographies relating to the cinematic arts uses it as a reference in this encyclopedia. I am trying to contribute to the encyclopedia by starting with what I know best and branching out, this is why I have focused on this article and the article on Played and had hoped to contribute much more in the future on historical figures that directly come from my family such as my great grandfather Walter Cramer who was hung for his involvement in Operation Valkyrie, my great grandfather Detlof von Winterfeldt who signed the Armistice with Germany to end WW1 and my ancestor Hans Karl von Winterfeldt who was Frederick II's favorite general.....and much more that I wanted to research and bring to this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casparvw (talk • contribs) 06:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the invite to watch trailers is not appropriate. Lots of other places to advertise.

Secondly, having a conflict of interest, it's best if you don't write your own entry. If you're notable enough, someone will do it independently.

Thirdly, that's a very long post. "I have added verified independent sources to the article" would be more appropriate.

Fourthly, IMDB is a notable directory, but specific to the industry, and being in it doesn't make you generally notable of itself.

Importantly, Wikipedia has a set of guidelines as to what constitutes notability. To put it crudely, if you're in the independent news i.e CNN, BBC, etc you have a much better chance of being in the encyclopedia.

Note - Vinny Jones, Val Kilmer and your Great Grandfather do not make you notable.

Please add sources to the article, maybe let us know what they are, and that's it. Try not to special plead. Thanks. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Patent self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YUCC[edit]

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

Non-notable club. Speedy declined by anonymous IP. PROD removed by article's author. So here we are at AfD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As posted on Talk:YUCC - "Speedy declined by anonymous IP. PROD removed by article's author. ". What exactly are you talking about? What is Speedy? and PROD? Just because the club isn't notable to you, doesn't mean it isn't notable at all. It's well known in certain circles (the UK university kayaking circle), so I really don't see how your argument stands. Mankeyrabbit (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)— Mankeyrabbit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete, No assertion of notability. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 3 hits on Google for the club itself. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Also, the IP edits and removal of the speedy template are suspicious. -- smurdah^{[citation needed]} 15:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Also, the IP edits and removal of the speedy template are suspicious" What on earth? "Suspicious"? suspicious of what? I talked to the author and he informed me that the "wiki police" had been very abrupt and rude, and as an amateur not really knowing what he was doing followed their advice. The page has been edited by another member of the club - representative for press&publicity actually, who doesn't have a wikipedia account. I don't understand what's "suspicious" about it... Mankeyrabbit (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• -- Clarified that the suspiciousness relates to the removal of the "speedy" template - that was not done by a member of the club. Mankeyrabbit (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There is nothing at all suspicious about IP edits (i.e. edits made by non-logged-on users). Much of our best content has been written by IP editors. And removal of a speedy deletion template is simply indicative of an editor who is unfamiliar with our procedures, and has no bearing on this debate. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is a small college sports club with approximately 15 members. No notability is asserted. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Captive orcas. MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taima (whale)[edit]

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

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This one lacks notability unlike that other article involving a whale you nominated for deletion. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Redirect to section in Captive orcas. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lolita (orca)[edit]

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

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - How is this a different AfD from the 1st one here ? --Triwbe (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is asserted in the article. Edward321 (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the new merged article Captive orcas. Maybe better as a section in this article? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a very notable animal due to its record longevity and the controversy surrounding it. Rlendog (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source. Also [8] shows notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katina (whale)[edit]

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

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research Rtphokie (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is asserted in the article. Edward321 (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Have added another source. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Asserting notability is never sufficient; notability must be demonstrated by referring to reliable third-party sources. A sea-world press release, like press releases in general, is never a valid way of references notability because press releases are usually biased towards promoting a particular agenda. The other reference is a website that, while certainly interesting, a quality site, and valuable for the "External Links" section of a website, isn't really a reliable source--it doesn't even say who runs it, and it certainly doesn't have any evidence of a rigorous editorial process. Cazort (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was rewritten to say it is a specific claim by Sea World, it's still a claim of notability. In that case the press release is perfectly acceptable as a reference. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment press releases are self published sources and are not suitable as references. That being said, these press releases are republished (often as is) by 3rd party news organizations (such as newspapers, magazines, television stations, etc). These are considered reliable sources and serve to vet the information enough for use as a wikipedia citation. Bottom, if this information is credible and notable, it is likely to be found in another news source other than a company press release, but company press releases are not suitable references, especially to establish notability. --Rtphokie (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This orca (and most others now in the AfD process) has bios in several sites devoted to orca-lovers. Some are fan clubs, others are campaigning for release. I suppose they are sort-of independent sources. Some seem well-researched, presumably reliable. To me, they are acceptable as sources of information, but dodgy as proof of notability. Katina does not seem in any way exceptional, unlike others who have made the news for one reason or another. I am more comfortable redirecting to the section in Captive orcas that describes Katina as an example. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to captive orcas. MBisanz ^talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalina (whale)[edit]

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

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to be original research. Rtphokie (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is asserted in the article. Edward321 (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Captive orcas. No sources, nothing to show notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to captive orcas. MBisanz ^talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikaika (whale)[edit]

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

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Tagged for over a year with reference concerns Rtphokie (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not very notable, and not much content. What there is, now in a section in Captive orcas. Could redirect to the section. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Google says its a slim to moderate hint of notibility but it does lack 3rd party sources. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge into captive orcas, unless more reliable sources can be found to establish the notability of this whale in particular. Anaxial (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Derry. MBisanz ^talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dopey Dick[edit]

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

lacks notability, essentially an article on this WP:ONEEVENT Rtphokie (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. But I have put the content into a small section in a new article on Captive orcas, even if it does not really belong. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't belong at captive orcas since the whale wasn't captive. I suggest merging with Derry. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Have to agree that it was not captive. Don't think it belongs in Derry either. Just a not-particularly-notable event. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While it is somewhat unusual for the whale to be disoriented yet survive the ordeal, I'm not convinced his salmon hunt is a memorable event or had any lasting effects on the town -- hence, he's not notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not at all relevant to an AfD discussion, but the article was viewed 528 times in January. There is some interest. But I have never heard of viewing stats being brought up as a reason to keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trashball[edit]

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

OK, this game is re-invented every day worldwide. But what of this article? Re-write in a sensible tone? Or delete because there is no professional trashball circuit? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not really a notable 'sport', but rather a backyard variation of basketball. Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a game/sport is professional doesn't really matter unless we're discussing the notability of the players. We should focus on whether we can write an article about it using reliable sources without turning it into a game guide. At the moment I think it has one suitable reference which might make it a good candidate for transwikification to a wikibook of games (or Scout games) - Mgm|^(talk) 22:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Adds no value. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trash. JuJube (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_Sheehan_(entertainment_journalist)[edit]

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

Not notable. He is an entertainment journalist with no claim to have a public profile. The only references given are examples of articles that he has written, not articles about him. It has the look of an article written by the subject in the hope of building his profile. Le poulet noir (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Have to agree. I can't see any notability here. Alberon (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not particularly notable. Love the list of celebs he has written about, as if that somehow connotes notability. I note that somebody had removed the AfD notice and removed this discussion from the deletion log. I have reverted and the notice and discussion are restored. PKT(alk) 11:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilver (Rio) Johnson[edit]

Wilver (Rio) Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Did not manage to find any significant coverage of the subject. Offline sources given in the article only seems to consist of passing mentions. --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481 12:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481 12:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of high level completion or anything else too pass WP:Athlete --Nate1481 12:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability questionable, no sources found. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Jua[edit]