< 9 February 11 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ina (goddess)[edit]

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

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 08:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O'Brian White[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Trivaeo[edit]

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

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

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

Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Hoaxes are vandalism. The article was about a mutated leech with crustacean legs. The macacalbius was discovered in the Argentinian Pampa plains in the year 1957, by the zoologist Juan Carlos Ciappina, who assumed it was a mutation of the Hirudinea Medicinalis, provoqued by an asteroid with a high radon content. I got a chuckle out of it, anyways. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macacalbius[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need we go on? Chris the speller (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Joyce Mercer only; DGG has suggested some possible claims to notability for others, and in any case multiple AfDs tend to be confusing to judge consensus anyhow, so we'd rather you didn't :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Mercer[edit]

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

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

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

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

The Runnymede Yellow Jumper[edit]

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

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

It's obviously a joke - speedy-delete it. - DavidWBrooks 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Did you pull over? pablohablo. 12:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to, but I felt the traffic queue might unravel. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

4AM Miracle[edit]

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

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

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

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

Harvest Moon New Enter The Moon[edit]

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

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

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

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

University of California Students Association[edit]

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

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

  • Comment But, notability is not inherited. Simply because something is a "major" part of something else, doesn't mean that it is notable. Notability must be established by non-trivial coverage coverage in reliable independent sources. This article doesn't satisfy this guideline.--AndTheElectricMayhem (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would apply to practically all official student associations/unions (Br). So are they all notable and deserve their own article, or should they be merged into the university's article? Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How much reliable source coverage do those associations get? If they draw as much public notice as the UCSA does, then articles on them would be presumptively justified. For what it's worth (not much), one has only to look at Category:United States student societies or Category:Collegiate secret societies to find a great many articles on student groups that are less notable than the politically influential student organization of one of America's largest university systems. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you're saying it's per case and this one happens to be esp notable. Ddawkins73 (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Separate, well-known, notable topic. Needs expansion (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game (simulation)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Anthony Palermo[edit]

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

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

This is not about a time frame, it's about notability.    SIS  21:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't actually a time limit - unless your article gets tagged. What this means is that someone doubts that it will ever be suitable. It's best to get your notability established quickly and then fill in afterwards. To contest this proposed deletion successfully, you need to show at least a certain notability that seems currently lacking. Reliable outside reference. That's what you need. Myspace and anything self-published, the National Enquirer, The Sun - no. Other people referring to you - in reliable places, yes. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia likes things that are verifiable. Internet from reliable places or checkable books or reliable newspapers or magazines that aren't self-published. Something published in the Guardian is likely notable and checkable. Something alleged to be published in the Downby-in-the-Swamp Enquirer and Almanac probably isn't, and is extremely difficult to verify, seeing as it's a two men one girl and a cat operation with no internet. Other stuff gets classed as OR (Original Research). I'll leave you to imagine the junk we'd get landed with otherwise. (The stuff we DO get landed with that gets deleted...) That's why I made the point of establishing notability. It's not that we are casting aspirins. We're wanting something verifiable. We want articles, but we have to filter out the junk. Sometimes something good has to go because it doesn't fit the standards, sometimes something not so good gets through because unfortunately it does. If this gets deleted, read the relevant policies people have quoted, and take a bit longer to set things up again. Ask for help if unsure - most established editors will help if asked nicely. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Stanley Littleton[edit]

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete, hoax. BencherliteTalk 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eamonn dowd[edit]

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

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


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

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

Courtney Crutcher[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • That there are articles about the others that have not yet been nominated has no bearing on this nomination. The notability of the TV show doesn't mean that the article should be kept as notability isn't inherited. The article cannot be improved in the absence of reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I implore you, please read the general notability guideline. The guideline specifically states that notability is not popularity. The popularity of the character is simply not relevant in determining whether the character is notable. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Facebook is not a reliable source as you pointed out and if the facebook entry is maintained by the production company or the network it is not independent. Please also note that significant coverage is defined as "more than trivial" and that single-sentence mentions of a topic in a larger source are "plainly trivial. The source to which you linked has exactly one sentence out of a much longer piece that is unambiguously about the character, which reads in its entirety: "Leading the ensemble cast on “Men” is Charlie Sheen, whose portrayal of oversexed Charlie Harper has garnered him three Emmy nominations and two Golden Globe nods for comedy performance." There is an additional sentence from an unnamed source that says "Charlie" is the reason for the show's success in syndication, but it is unclear whether that is a reference to the actor Charlie Sheen or the character Charlie Harper. Either way, the mention is plainly trivial. It is really not that difficult a concept. Sources = notability. No sources means no independent notability. Can you explain exactly what it is about that concept that is so hard for you to grasp? Because I can certainly try to explain it again. You want the article kept, you "try a little harder. I do not nominate articles for deletion without conducting searches for sourcing, so I do not appreciate your implication that I did not do so here. There, again, appear to be no sources that support the independent notability of this character. I'll chek your external links and I'm sure that I'll find that they are every bit as trivial as the non-source that you posted here.
There is no reason to insult someone's intelligence in an AfD discussion. What goes on here is not that important. We are all trying to make Wikipedia the best it can be. SMSpivey (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um no, some of us are apparently wanting to detract from the encyclopedia by keeping articles that do not come close to meeting the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. This not only weakens the encyclopedia as it stands by maintaining non-encyclopedic topics, it undermines the future of the project by setting precedents for keeping such articles. Otto4711 (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What undermines the future of the project is having to continuously engage in endless arguments with those who push interpretations of guidelines to an extreme far beyond community consensus. When even the only other person arguing to delete (Kww, below) disagrees with you on notability ("the character certainly passes the notability criteria"), I'd suggest you entertain the possibility that your interpretation of the notability guideline is a peculiar personal one. DHowell (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't. They only need to significantly cover the subject if they are used to establish notability rather than merely verify article content. Since sources show the actor playing this character was nominated for notable awards for doing so, the character is already notable, so the WP:GNG you're referring to here doesn't apply. GNG is just one of many possible notability guidelines, not the only one and certainly not a strict version of WP:V. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • God, aren't you even the slightest bit embarrassed !voting "keep" on the basis of Google hits? You've been around here long enough to know that the Google test is bogus. But hey, lets examine some of the high quality sources that have turned up since this AFD opened:
  • External links section: IMDB - not reliable. A link to an external wiki - not reliable. A list of girlgriend's on a wiki - not reliable. The TV Week article - plainly trivial. The "Wingman" article in the Daily News - doesn't even mention the character's name. The Hofer book - page content's restricted but the character is mention on one page of a 315 page book; in other words trivial. The Muir book - mentioned on one page of a 348 page book...trivial. As for the meager less-than-200 Ghits your search returned, while I did not look at every single one of them, they appear simply to mention the name of the character while providing no real-world information about the character. So they do not pass notability guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And once again, mere mentions of the character do not constitute significant coverage. And no, the character did not garner any Emmy or GG nominations. The actor did. And the standard is not "I bet there are sources out there somewhere." The standard is "there are reliable sources available." This bizarre notion that articles for which there are no sources should be kept because somebody believes that there might be sources would bring AFD to a grinding halt. There can be no justification for removing any article, not even hoaxes, because someone might believe in the hoax in good faith. Policies and guidelines aregood things. They exist for a reason. If someone believes that this weird "someone somewhere thinks that there might be sources somewhere" should be the standard, then they should take it up on an appropriate policy or guideline talk page and attain consensus rather than trying to backdoor it through AFD because they don't like it. Otto4711 (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet again, enough mere mentions can make a GA (been there, done that), and every future GA needs to start somewhere. You think no-one will put the energy into doing the necessary research (which is a reasonable assumption) => upmerge the character into one character list with easier-to-reach FL potential until someone volunteers. No deletion necessary. – sgeureka t•c 12:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Aggi Dukes[edit]

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

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

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

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

List of department stores by country[edit]

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

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

  • My comment was directed at the "a whole load of non-notable stores end up getting listed" comment - if that is in general like you are saying, you should take it up with policy, not with one particular article. — neuro(talk) 07:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to WWE Friday Night SmackDown#Special episodes. Redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 08:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SmackDown All-Star Kick-Off[edit]

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

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

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

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

Ray (2009 film)[edit]

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

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

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

The result was keep. Disregarding the vote-stacking by those who do not understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines, there appear to be enough non-trivial secondary sources in the article to meet GNG. Of note, many of the refs are broken and either lead to 404 pages or blank content, and overall the article has something of an improper tone. Cleanup is needed, not deletion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric West[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ray Part 2[edit]

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

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

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

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

Trade rates[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which policy? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The BUPC were not studied by Stone, but rather the findings in his book were the result of research done by three different professors from the University of Montana that spanned 16 years.
  2. As MARussell noted, the BUPC were satirized by Michael Moore's T.V. Nation in 1994 among other "Armageddon Groups".
  3. The Missoulian Newspaper more than meets standards for notability, and have been publishing coverage of their local group for more than 30 years.
  4. The BUPC have never published numbers of membership, so any claimed data is purely speculative.
  5. Leland Jensen and Neal Chase's articles are biographies about themselves, and even a cursory glance at the three articles shows that nothing is duly noted in any of the articles. The BUPC are a group with many self-published books and websites about themselves, but this article does not solely rely upon them. In fact very little is found in any of these three articles that relies upon them for references. The biographies about the leaders are separate and independent of the article about the group. Cunado has not provided any difs to support his assertion that these three articles "all basically repeat the same thing".
  6. There is no "unresolved court case" involving the leadership of the group. The 2001 court case has been resolved amicably. The plaintiff in the case, who had created there own site has removed it, and all is well in the group again. This should be obvious to Cunado as his own NSA has twice since 2004 dragged the BUPC, with Neal Chase named as it's President, into Federal Court in Chicago suing them over copyright violations for using the name Baha'i. It's odd that his leaders consider the BUPC notable enough to repeatedly drag into court to protect their marks, but Cunado would have the readers believe the groups is entirely un-notable.
  7. Cunado's WP:TEND with this group isn't hard to establish considering that his contributions show 34 out of 36 edits between 1/18/09 and 1/21/09 involved contributing WP:OR and WP:SYN over these pages mentioned here.DisarrayGeneral 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick review of policy makes these arguments irrelevant. Organizations are notable if they 1: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. AND 2: Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read on below, for as Baileypalblue notes, their notability is well established beyond merely being covered by the local press, but have 3rd party recognition from Stone, appearances on Art Bell, Michael Moore's TV Nation, the Harvard research study, Balch, et al. DisarrayGeneral 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only source that is significant is Stone's. Balch is the researcher published in Stone's book, so that is a redundant source. The others are casual mentions on TV, and the "Harvard research study" was not a study of the group, it was a study of every religious denomination in the state and represents another casual mention. Stone's book and the court document are the only reliable sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, this webpage is the "casual mention" of the Harvard Study. The "casual mention" of the T.V. Nation spot was 10 minutes of the 44 minute episode. These are entirely new concerns, which beg the question "why now" when you've been an active contributing editor to this article since November 2005? Just this past January 18th you did a major rewrite to the article, and on the 19th tried to delete it without discussion. It's natural to question such erratic behavior, isn't it? DisarrayGeneral 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing to delete information. The pages need to reflect the only reliable sources, which means merging and redirecting. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, here is the TV Nation video. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. That's obviously a gross over-simplification of the intentions behind this AFD, for in the first attempt to redirect this material to the Leland Jensen article copious amounts of information were being deleted in the process. I'm glad to see the obvious subterfuge being attempted here has been resolved. Good luck with the "merger". DisarrayGeneral 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Uncle G. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bunting[edit]

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

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

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

The result was delete. At first look, the fact that it's been a long-running band featured in Guitar Hero and later Rock Band got my hopes up, but according to List of songs in Rock Band the game developer has featured bands with fellow or former team members or from the local area, suggesting this isn't as good a rubric as we might think (a COI, et al.) Article does not have the coverage necessary to meet GNG, and neither do their spinoff album articles (It's Not as Bad as I'm Making It Sound and Third Time's The Charm). io9 hasn't been established as a reliable source, but it's possible the author, Annalee Newitz, meets WP:SPS. That gives us one weak source for a keep. The google book mention is in a work of fiction, and the other sources I found were trivial. It's possible that soon this article might meet GNG or BAND; as such, they don't appear to know. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Irrelevant side note. This is probably the most awesome name for a band I have ever, ever, ever heard. Graymornings(talk) 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 00:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow Fight League[edit]

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

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

Fair enough - Just wanted to make sure you saw the intervening edits. MrZaiustalk 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Total Body Lift[edit]

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

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

Okay, probably best if we remove the spam from the article and see what's left. Like I say, I can't find many independent sources, but I'll go through it now and let's see if we've got an article. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Body shaping.
- ( bolded - Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'll post the obesity paragraph on the obesity talk page. They might make use of it.
(The line the nom mentions, The female physique embodies the true sense of a three dimensional shape in space, could maybe be merged to the Gender geometry page)
- Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

LoveGame (Lady GaGa Song)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Tuna (Polynesian mythology)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Medicomp[edit]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ICONICS[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catacombs 2: Party Time (film)[edit]

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

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

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

The result was keep. NYScholar has brought to the fore sources which might allow article to meet GNG, and at the bare minimum suggest that there may still be more sources to use. I frankly can't understand much of what Jetskere is saying, but it appears to be editorial in nature and thus not in the purview of an AfD. Take it to talk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malaka Dewapriya[edit]

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

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

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

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

Related comments[edit]

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

This Structure[edit]

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

String of votes[edit]

Keep You ahve to dig a bit for the good refs, and the student thing threw me a bit. But there is substantial coverage and recognition to warrant an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Before you accuse good-faith editors of "wasting people's time" in asking for a deletion review of much prior versions of this article, you need to consult the article's history when I encountered it, with its prior template and the previous deletion decision 268246651: if anyone's time has been "wasted", it's mine. (Scroll up to top). --NYScholar (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(cont.) Please see User talk:Fabartus: if you can "in good conscience" "no longer support this project" why are you commenting here at all? Please Be polite: this kind of comment made obviously without consulting the article's long controversial deletion history sets a very poor example for newer editors. --NYScholar (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Query re: procedure for closure[edit]

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

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

Arbitrary break[edit]

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

Mistaken closure[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Residual notability doubts[edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was Keep. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Hudson[edit]

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

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

Withdrawing nominations for Ron Hudson and John Goodner based on recent improvements showing that they meet the general notability guideline. WODUP (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changed on the basis of Baileypalblue's distinctions.DGG (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and to address the deletion rationale of User:WODUP, I'm not sure WP:ATHLETE is the best guideline for judging coaches, whose work is mental and not athletic; I'd be inclined to judge them by WP:CREATIVE. In any case, college football coaching is fully professional, and is not a developmental tier the way college football play is to the pros, so I don't think college coaches should be presumed non-notable based on WP:ATHLETE's rationale. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Bruh[edit]

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

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

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

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

The Unreleased (Britney Spears album)[edit]

The Unreleased (Britney Spears album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
"The Unreleased is a fan invention from pop singer Britney Spears."
"but always keep in mind this doesn't really exist." DitzyNizzy (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Kevin Emery[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agents Of Insight[edit]

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

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


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

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

Eduardo Skinner[edit]

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

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Dale (writer)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Publishing House ERSEN[edit]

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

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

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

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

Six magazine[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Justice in Poetry[edit]

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

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

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

The result was Delete as apparent hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orégonomy[edit]

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

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

There a couple of other problems with this article which show that it is untrue:
  • To the best of my knowledge, the Chinooks did not have a written language. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
  • Of the so-called examples cited, three of the five words are English words. The article claims that Orégonomy is "ancient writing". The Chinook could not have had ciphers for English words in "ancient writing."
•••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Andrew "Carter" Brown[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martin Jahnke[edit]

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

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

There already appears to be an entry for this event in the Muntadhar al-Zaidi article. -- Longhair\talk 14:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Man Enough[edit]

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

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

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

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

Ghost of Things Past[edit]

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

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

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

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

Cara Fitzgerald[edit]

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

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

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

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

Sophia Lopez Part II[edit]

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

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

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

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

The Marooning[edit]

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

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

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

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

Colón Insular Region[edit]

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

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

Note. The article's author also introduced entries for contestants from the supposed province of Colón into Miss Dominican Republic 1952 and the corresponding articles for the years through 1957. (Actually he seems to have been responsible for essentially all the content of these articles, which appear to lack supporting sources.) If this article is deleted, a closer look should probably be taken at the editor's other contributions as well. Deor (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. User MRDU08 is giving many others a lot of trouble, as s/he has made a ton of bad changes and created bad articles. I only found out fairly recently and began to delve into it, so I do find myself surprised that s/he went so far as to apparently invent contestants for a pageant.
Also, I should note that among the users who have challenged MUDU08 to source the Colón Insular Region article is a Dominican geographer, User:Pepemar2. SamEV (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet Explorer Collection[edit]

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

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

  • Paying no attention to the arguments about integral or otherwise nature of IE. :) Like George Washington's axe.
My question is really where the lines are generally drawn. Lots of software that might be notable that won't have a mention at, for example, http://bbc.co.uk/news . Quite possible for a version of Halo to miss the mainstream news but be all over forums and software review sites. What I want to know is if repeated mentions at reputable sites like Technet etc make a piece of software notable? Then, how many hits etc? 30 reviews at sites like Technet is nothing near as noteable as a significant story in the mainstream news. Using Google, it's hard to establish what notability is for software; and where to draw the line.
- Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Edward Alman Dalída[edit]

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

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

Nizle[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Morphers in Power Rangers[edit]

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

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

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

The result was delete. and salt. — Aitias // discussion 00:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GDrive[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brais Eiriz Fernández[edit]

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Mr[edit]

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

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

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

The result was keep. Article was rewritten to address concerns, no longer any reason to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vector soliton[edit]

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

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

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

  • Answer I may have been mistaken about which line I found elsewhere, however I was not mistaken about some of these extended sentences being very closely related to other works. After a quick search, I find the following two
  • The line "which is now known as a high-order phase- locked vector soliton in SMFs." is found at [25].
  • The sentence that begins "Vector solutions can be spatial or temporal..." is also found in similar form at [26] (Compare "Vector solutions can be spatial or temporal and formed by two orthogonally polarized components of a single optical field or two fields of different frequencies but the same polarization." to "The vector soliton solutions of this model can be spatial or temporal and .... Here u1 z , x and u2 z , x are two orthogonally polarized components of a .... of two incoherent optical beams having the same wavelength and polarization in .... of each colliding soliton with the same polarization and background field.").
My concern initially was that the tone of the article, and the way citations were done, and other little factors, suggested a lot of copy pasting into the article. My initial searches confirmed some hits. Perhaps some of these phrases are drawn from the field and you would expect to find elsewhere, but these are issues that need to be addressed because I believe they suggest underlying copyright issues. Shadowjams (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search returns plenty of sources; for example, [27], [28], [29]. Salih (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the person who creates this website about vector soliton.
Because vector solitons are rather are ubiquitous and generic in the entire field of nonlinear systems, it should be very interesting to edit this concept in this famous website: wiki. However, as I am only a foreign student with poor English, this website is not well prepared. However, I promise that I would improve this website as best as I can. I am not intending to advise something in this website but just want to introduce the basic concept of wiki. So due to my limited knowledge on vector solitons, I could only dare to introduce our works on vector solitons. But I hope other researchers on vector solitons would try to improve this and make more people know about what vector solitons are. Please give me more time on improving this and I would try to clarify something inappropriate. Wish you could reconsider after a second thought as i have delete and add something alread.
Best regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectorsoliton (talk • contribs) 11:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS:I have rewrote the articles and hope you could give me another chance!
Best regards, Vectorsoliton (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC) vectorsoliton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectorsoliton (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Lectonar. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friday the 31st[edit]

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

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

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

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

Kaelyn[edit]

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

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

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

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

Guangzhou Championships[edit]

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

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

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

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

The wrong kind of snow[edit]

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

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


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

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

List of Shaman King chapters[edit]

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

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

  • So... your basis for wanting to delete is that somebody beat you to the punch in creating the article...? Because that's how it reads to me. Sure, its nice to be able to put a 100% finished article up, but it isn't even remotely mandatory. Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate your work-in-progress into this new article? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 04:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Farid[edit]

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

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

— Sandla2sandi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Orlady (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this particular single edit is singularly unhelpful. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Looking at the original version of the article, I can see how this discussion got started. There has, however, been substantial work done on the article, and there's really no reason to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdb484 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

A Dark Halo[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Katherine Needleman. MBisanz talk 00:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trio La Milpa[edit]

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

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

Comment Presuming being a musician in a major American orchestra is notable, then maybe merge to Katherine Needleman? I don't know - is Katherine Needleman notable? It's more notable to me than winning an AVN, but I suppose less soloists have you on first name terms. Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Curtis Brigham[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. --aktsu (t / c) 11:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Keigo Kunihara[edit]

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

Found no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). --aktsu (t / c) 11:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Achmed Labasanov[edit]

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

No significant coverage of the subject. --aktsu (t / c) 08:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky). MBisanz talk 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trunnell Elementary School[edit]

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

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

Per WP:ORG, "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." All sources cited are either school databases or are local, so the sources do not indicate notability. cmadler (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it ain't exactly the Yomiuri Shimbun, but the Louisville Courier Journal IS "the 48th largest daily paper in the United States and the single largest in Kentucky" ... I don't know how that "attention by local media" clause of WP:ORG is typically interpreted, but I'd figure it means to exclude town/neighbourhood rags, not large metro newspapers. cab (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry, but flat out deletion is what an AfD nomination requests. If you consider that the key content should be maintained but that merge is your preferred option then using the mergeto/mergefrom tags is the way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet how many AfDs end as a merge? It's just as viable an outcome as delete. The article, like any other that ends as merge, is not notable on it's own. It doesn't pass WP:N, so it should be nominated for deletion. If the consensus is that some of the information can be merged to another, then that's what the discussion is for. Grsz11 01:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just because others have used the wrong approach doesn't mean that you should also. Yes, a merge is a valid outcome for an AfD, but when your intention is to get the page merged then it is better practice, and saves other editors' time, if you use the merge procedure. However, this is not the case here since, as this discussion has shown, this school meets WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyogen Carlson[edit]

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

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

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

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

Yoshi Ando[edit]

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

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Martin[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Sadat Husaini[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Bob Rankin[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Bristol Indymedia[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the Register is a reliable source, the particular story cited is a reliable source for the notability of an event involving this organization - not of the independent notability of the organization itself. Thus, el reg does not cut against this article's nomination for deletion. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Alexf(talk) 20:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HotBasic[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Naymick[edit]

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

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

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

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

RevealThePicture (game)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Hashmi (Nekokara)[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry, I saw this relisted in my watch list along with a few others and for the life of me didn't realize that I was the nominator! That was dumb :) Thank you for pointing it out. §FreeRangeFrog 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Kayden William Troff[edit]

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

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

The article now cites two different newspapers and a TV station that have written stories about the kid in the last 15 months, and also that the United States Chess Federation named him to the 2008 "All-America Chess Team". I think that is sufficiently notable, so I'm changing my "Weak Keep" to "Keep". Krakatoa (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Jeffrey F. Bell[edit]

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

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

List of specialty stores[edit]

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

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

Oh, no! It exists: List of department stores :-C Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed that one at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of department stores by country KuyaBriBriTalk 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Jottit[edit]

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

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

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

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

Bruce Roselle[edit]

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

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

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

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

Make Compatible[edit]

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

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

  1. Answer to nom - That an article requires cleanup is not grounds for deletion. The bulk of the missing information you describe is now present in the first sentence, "Make Compatible is a program that is bundled with Microsoft Windows 98."
  2. Answer to Jules: Like many other transitional tools, this topic has merit as an illustration of the evolution of the level of backwards compatibility seen in these versions of Windows.
  3. To general complaints about notability and lack of context: The assertion of notability is missing, but sources have been provided from which it can be built. Again, cleanup seems more appropriate than deletion, and CSD certainly doesn't seem warranted w/o the presence of a copyvio. The notability issue has less of an impact on the article from a reader's perspective (ie, not a policy perspective) than the poor syntax and howto-like structure. The context issue is significant, but dramatically overstated by the nom - There's more than enough information already in the article to form a well-written stub LEAD. A major cleanup effort will be required if retained.

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

No suggestion in your reply for why this should be covered separately. Bongomatic 12:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From? This isn't a merge suggestion, it's an AfD discussion. Got a proposal worth making that you're sitting on? A viable merge candidate would be interesting, if there is one. MrZaiustalk 16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Inspire Academy of Music and Arts[edit]

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

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

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

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

Jazz knee[edit]

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

The result was redirect to Joslin Diabetes Center. MBisanz talk 01:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf diabetes specialist center[edit]

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

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

Sure--but allow me some rhetorical leeway... ;) Drmies (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin closure) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gadegalleriet[edit]

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

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

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

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

Oblates of Mary[edit]

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

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

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

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

Lesley Sussman[edit]

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

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

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

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

Heavy Metal (truck)[edit]

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

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

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