< 22 February	24 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No bias against a complex merge. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secure USB drive[edit]

There is already a security section within usb flash drive that pretty much covers the topic. Also, there is no such thing as a secure usb drive, though there are security measures that can be applied to data on usb flash drives just as they can be applied to data on hard drives, CD-ROMs (while being written), or even floppy disks for that matter. Unless we want articles on secure floppy disks, secure hard drives, etc. it seems like this article should be deleted. Also, secure is a quality that is relative and non-absolute - i.e. some things are more secure than others - just as are fast and rugged. Articles on fast usb drive or rugged usb drive aren't appropriate, nor are articles on fast or rugged floppy disks for that matter. These qualities can be discussed in the USB flash drive article, but are by themselves unencyclopedic. Eruvian (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains perfectly good work and should rather be improved upon. -down load | sign! 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the subject is a notable one that can be written about, I'm concerned that a lot of this article is, in fact, original research. The large section on costs of data security breaches is sourced to two sources, one of which was not considering USB storage in particular, and the other of which was conducted by a vendor of secure flash disks, thus hardly making it an independent source. Most of the examples of data theft/loss cited do not concern flash disks at all. The "solutions" and "management" sections are unsourced, and while they appear at first glance to be largely accurate, they do need close attention to ensure the claims are accurate. Also, I'm not convinced that a flash drive that has been secured via software is routinely referred to as a "Secure USB Drive", a phrase I've only ever heard used to refer to the hardware type. To address this concern, the article may need renaming (e.g. to USB flash drive security) and rewriting from a slightly different perspective. This would have the advantage that the article would then become a summary-style section of USB flash drive. There may also be NPOV issues, as the article appears to push software encryption as a better solution than hardware encryption. All of this will take a lot of work, and I question whether or not it is more practical to simply start from scratch. JulesH (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article includes reliable sources and describes a recognized significant class of USB drives (compare to Rugged computer or Subcompact car). However, I support JulesH's suggestions above that the name of the article be changed to USB flash drive security and the article be used as a summary section in USB flash drive. I do not support the assessment that starting over from scratch may be preferable; even if so, the presence of an existing article does not prevent an editor starting a rewrite from scratch if so desired. – 74 21:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the cited info into the USB drive article. I don't agree that secure USB drive is a significant type, it is just a normal USB drive with normal security attached. When the OR is removed from this article, it would easily fit in the parent article section. Only needs recreating if that section grows too large. The keep votes don't seem to adrees the problems: yes it can be worked on and has some sources, but it would better serve a reader to have this important information covered in the main article.Yob Mod 13:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to USB flash drive security. (1) The ramifications of using USB flash drives for storing sensitive data and the security problems associated with them is a notable topic. (2) The USB flash drive article is long enough to justify splitting this topic out into its own article. (3) I support moving the article to the more neutral and encyclopedic name USB flash drive security. After keeping and renaming, the article does need a complete rewrite. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm fine with a merge in place of a delete. Given that there are many different types of portable media in current use (CD-ROMs, DVDs, portable hard drives, solid-state drives, flash drives, etc.), and that with few exceptions they are protected in much the same way, I suggest that portable media security be a section within data security, or perhaps a secure storage section in computer security. It seems that either of these would reduce future redundant articles like portable hard drive security and solid-state disk security and heaven-forbid floppy disk security that would all read somewhat like "Due to their portability, <insert portable media here> often have their data protected by...". Any particulars of usb flash drive security could then be dealt with in the usb flash drive article with a See Also pointing to data security. Just trying to keep it clean and tight. BTW, I'm pretty new and this is my first AfD - really great to see the process work! I'm curious to see what comes next...! =) Eruvian (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as moot. Colonel Warden found the Obvious Right Thing. I redirected the page, and therefore this can be closed for lack of continuing jurisdiction. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry learning[edit]

It's not at all clear what's going on in this article, but someone added an AfD tag without completing the process, so I'm doing that now. Personally, I was tempted to just speedy it, so I'd say delete as a non-article. GTBacchus^(talk) 23:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This phrase makes it sound very unproffesional: "People discover more they know and more they dunno." However, the content is not biographical and could potentially be something important. This could always be redirected to something related to Socratic method also. -down load | sign! 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be a real topic but this is worthless as even a stub. DGG (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inquiry-based learning which seems to be the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:35, 24 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Gokey[edit]

Another article for a non-entity reality TV contestant. Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Unless this guy wins (which will be a long time off anyway), releases an album/single or is found to be noteable in some other way, then it's delete, delete, delete. Dalejenkins | 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of redundant arguments that are on this, and the other 2, AFDs[edit]

Please read - Dalejenkins | 17:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do love overlinking. You seem to have no idea how AfD works, but you definitely love ovelinking. H₂O Shipper 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment here: I rely not solely on precedent in my "keep" recommendation, though precedent in this case is long and persuasive. However, if long established precedent alone is not enough to sway, it should be noted that all three articles have 1000+ Gnews hits. This series of AfDs seems far more about what some wish were the case regarding standards for inclusion in Wikipedia than what actually is the case. H₂O Shipper 19:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... are you saying these three people have received non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent sources? Or are you saying they haven't, but that doesn't matter. It would be cool if it were clear which of those two you meant... If it's the former, be CLEAR about that. Name the sources. List them. PROVE that we've got non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent sources. Once you do that, arguments for deletion will vanish like the morning dew. Stop defeating yourself, Watershipper. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And well done, you also just broke WP:POPULARPAGE. And WP:CIVIL. Dalejenkins | 21:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, leave it, Dale. WP:CIVIL isn't a law, and telling someone they "broke it" just makes you look like a lawyer. Please don't be a lawyer. It makes it more difficult for people to agree with you. On the other hand, please do reply to direct questions I've asked you in this thread, which you seem to be ignoring. If the other side refuses to address relevant points, maybe you can show them how it's done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you won't comment on all the other points I've made - just WP:CIVIL. OK.... Dalejenkins | 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dale, I'll cheerfully comment on all your points, the civility one is just the one that got under my skin the fastest. Most of what you said besides that is fine, but slightly off-topic. Now, however, you've made a very helpful post below. Thank you for that, and I'll comment further below. I do hope you'll note what I said about lawyering, because it's important. It can mean the difference between a 5-minute argument and a 5-month one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, maybe one should first wait till the season is over before one tries to judge their popularity, for all we know the best selling artist in a million years might come from this season. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--[[User:23prootie|23prootiecute]] (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source Analysis[edit]

[1] - Local newspaper/publication. There's probably articles like "Bus Driver saves cat" in that paper, but those people don't deserve articles. Fails WP:RS.
[2] - From the webpage of a tabloid/gossip collumn-style TV show. About as reliable as citing Heat or The National Enquirer.
[3] - Primary source. We need reliable secondary sources.
[4] - Again, local news - see above. And its only a trivial mention about his religion - does not prove notablility.
[5] - Written by FOX, therefore its a primary source.
[6] - Same as the first one - even the same author/publication.
[7] - Although a reliable source, its only a short trivial piece to mention that he made it through to the next round. Again - it doesn't show notablility.
[8] - Tabloid trash - see a few point above.
[9] - Not only just a local publication (see the first point) but its an article on somebody else and Gokey is mentioned in just 2 sentences.
[10] - Local publication - see first post/
[11] - This source is the most reliable, but only states that he auditioned for a TV show, his wife died and that he is religious. Again - this doesn't establish notability.

So are we in agreement that these sources are dreadful, meaning that the subject fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE? Or are AI fans still going to argue otherwise? Dalejenkins | 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this, Dale; it's very helpful. Now it will be much easier to talk about the sources.

Of those you listed , #3 and #5 are not independent, and #9 is an article about someone else - Gokey's coverage in it is trivial.

So, throwing out the trivial and the non-independent, we've got 8 pieces of source material with which to determine notability. They consist of:

2 stories in a local paper (The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) 1 6
1 story in the Religion section of a local news site from North Carolina - this story is about 2 people, Gokey being 1. That's not trivial. 4
1 story on "examiner.com" (local in Seattle?) with an AP byline. Non-trivial. 10
1 from Reuters UK. Non-trivial. 11
1 story in the New York Times, which is about Gokey and 2 others. It's also quite short, and un-detailed. Borderline trivial, I'd say. 7, and
2 stories on "entertainment news" websites. I'm not sure these sites are known for their reliability... 2 8

Now, notability is established not by any single source, but by the presence of non-trivial coverage in multiple sources, independent of the subject, which are known for their reliability. I would say that the four local news items and the Reuters UK story combine to satisfy that requirement. I'm not aware that local newspapers are deprecated as reliable sources. I'm open to hearing what others think.

I would also note, as a general point, that if we want to have special cases where musicians in special situations get an article no matter what, then that needs to be written into WP:MUSIC if we're to expect anyone to know about it. This is similar to how we handle businesses (or did last time I looked): any company on the Fortune 500 list gets an article, even if they don't otherwise satisfy notability criteria. Such cases are much easier to deal with when they've been centrally discussed and written down. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into American Idol (season 8) along with Alexis Grace and Michael Sarver. There simply is not enough information on them to warrant their own articles yet... Eventually when more info comes we can re-create the pages, but there just isn't enough right now. The info. will just be redundant and duplicate here. Ejfetters (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah but there will be more information coming. That isn't really a reason to delete an article. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Given that Entertainment Weekly, a not-so-well known poor man's showbiz tabloid related to the cheap cable network CNN has an entire webpage] dedicated entirely on American Idol contestants, it's pretty clear that the topic is not notable.23prootiecute
Keep American Idol Top 12 finalist, what more notability would one need?! --Ekabhishek (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dalejenkins, please restrict your arguments regarding above issue to this page, there is no point starting an argument at a talk page! --Ekabhishek (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AI finalists qualify for their own article - they're notable by definition. — CJewell (talk to me) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess the issue is that "notability" has a specific definition on Wikipedia, and we need to demonstrate that subjects of articles meet that definition. Arguments addressing the Wikipedia notion of "notability" will be more effective than the other kind.
At Wikipedia a topic is deemed "notable" if: It has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple sources that are (a) independent of the subject, and (b) known for accuracy and reliability. It means nothing more nor less than that, around here, so that's really the best thing to address in this discussion. Thus, AI finalists are not notable "by definition"; they're notable if and only if they've been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources - which I'm pretty sure they have. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per previous rationale. Sam ^Blab 01:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Obviously notable. Jason (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A Google Search today 2/27/2009 gave almost 800,000 pages. If that is not notable, I don't know what is. --AAAAA (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um... non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources is our definition of notable. So, 800,000 Ghits don't necessarily do it. Your !vote would be stronger if you address the definition, rather than a subjective notion of "notability". -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other Idol-related articles have the winner and its runners-up notable for Wikipedia. The only way for these finalists to have its own articles is when they have their own album, which would pass notability issues. 114.198.145.132 (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I said my last comment was my last comment, but just by way of education, what this IP posted is objectively untrue. Far more than just "the winner and its runners up" have their own articles. H₂O Shipper 14:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established and there are clear precedents, per woohookitty. Dean B (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should be closed now. Further discussion is pointless, and the other two have already been closed per WP:SNOW. H₂O Shipper 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This type of nonsence is pointless.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:02, 28 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Grace[edit]

Another article for a non-entity reality TV contestant. Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Unless she wins (which will be a long time off anyway), releases an album/single or is found to be noteable in some other way, then it's delete, delete, delete. Dalejenkins | 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of redundant arguments that are on this, and the other 2, AFDs[edit]

Please read - Dalejenkins | 17:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment here: I rely not solely on precedent in my "keep" recommendation, though precedent in this case is long and persuasive. However, if long established precedent alone is not enough to sway, it should be noted that all three articles have 1000+ Gnews hits. This series of AfDs seems far more about what some wish were the case regarding standards for inclusion in Wikipedia than what actually is the case. H₂O Shipper 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And well done, you also just broke WP:POPULARPAGE. Dalejenkins | 21:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Wikiedia is not a crystal ball so before you try to predict their popularity, please wait until the show is over, as we say in our culture papansin ka lang.--23prootiecute
Merge into American Idol (season 8) along with Michael Sarver and Danny Gokey. There simply is not enough information on them to warrant their own articles yet... Eventually when more info comes we can re-create the pages, but there just isn't enough right now. The info. will just be redundant and duplicate here. Ejfetters (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i think it is really cute how much Dalejenkins professes his love for American Idol by showing us how many Wikilaws he knows. If your not a fan of the show then how do you know which people to target. You're obviously a fan but too emasculated to admit it.--23prootiecute
Keep American Idol Top 12 finalist, what more notability would one need?! --Ekabhishek (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AI finalists qualify for their own article - they're notable by definition. — CJewell (talk to me) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - They are finalists, and they have met notability right there. Only a few finalists lack articles, and they are from early seasons who lost notability by doing nothing for a long time post-Idol. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other Idol-related articles have the winner and its runners-up notable for Wikipedia. The only way for these finalists to have its own articles is when they have their own album, which would pass notability issues. By the way, remember that THIS IS NOT A MAJORITY VOTE (and I hope the closing admin would read that part). 13:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.145.132 (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sarver[edit]

Another article for a non-entity reality TV contestant. Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Unless this guy wins (which will be a long time off anyway), releases an album/single or is found to be noteable in some other way, then it's delete, delete, delete. Dalejenkins | 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of redundant arguments that are on this, and the other 2, AFDs[edit]

Please read - Dalejenkins | 17:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment here: I rely not solely on precedent in my "keep" recommendation, though precedent in this case is long and persuasive. However, if long established precedent alone is not enough to sway, it should be noted that all three articles have 1000+ Gnews hits. This series of AfDs seems far more about what some wish were the case regarding standards for inclusion in Wikipedia than what actually is the case. H₂O Shipper 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And well done, you also just broke WP:POPULARPAGE. Dalejenkins | 21:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into American Idol (season 8) along with Alexis Grace and Danny Gokey. There simply is not enough information on them to warrant their own articles yet... Eventually when more info comes we can re-create the pages, but there just isn't enough right now. The info. will just be redundant and duplicate here. Ejfetters (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep American Idol Top 12 finalist, what more notability would one need?! --Ekabhishek (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AI finalists qualify for their own article - they're notable by definition. — CJewell (talk to me) 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per previous rationale. Sam ^Blab 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other Idol-related articles have the winner and its runners-up notable for Wikipedia. The only way for these finalists to have its own articles is when they have their own album, which would pass notability issues. 114.198.145.132 (talk) 13:57, 27 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 22:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Television News Channel[edit]

Non-notable project; may never actually come into existence Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- Sources are available to establish notability, NY Daily News, NY Post, International Herald, etc. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I think it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The project isn't notable yet, Watts is; he said he was gonna do it, but apparently the idea has flopped. Anything useful here could be folded into the article on Watts until and unless it actually happens. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now. While it is certainly interesting, it is noted in the article that it is Not Available on cable systems, and to my knowledge it is not broadcast anywhere. When it becomes notable, then create it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so far, the only indications of it even coming into existence are articles announcing J.C. Watts' startup plans and the channel site itself. Because there is yet to be any "official" announcement of the proposed start date of broadcasting, this is a violation of WP:CBALL as crystal balling. This article is premature - should the channel make it to the point of reaching WP:CORP (which it will once cable systems start carrying it), then would be an appropriate time to write the article, not before. B.Wind (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 02:01, 28 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. Is director of an film whose article exists. 2 very good external references, a couple of others that are also valid. Article requires expansion. Very few !votes, but notability HAS been established contrary to original nom. Significant "what links here"entries. Although 2 !votes to 1 !votes is hardly "overwhelming", I NAC because WP:N is quite clear. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Lopez-Dawson[edit]

Non-notable bio. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The actress is notable enough for the New York Times to have a profile (albeit no a full bio) on her [14] which tells us that she has played in several well known TV-series including 24, Judging Amy, and Medium. The Fat Free Film website [15] is not independent, but has some material which can be useful if anyone wants to expand the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't count as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As director of A Single Woman (film) she has been interviewed in several independent sources, e.g. [16], [17], [18]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – She has received independent coverage. Just now I also added a feature interview with her in La Opinión. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:27, 27 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) Erik9 (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Wimpout[edit]

Non-notable dice game. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N Letsdrinktea (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't mention in Hobby Games: The 100 Best mean something? I've added a mention in Group Genius, and a couple other hits show up at the top of this Google Books search. There's enough reference in third-party material for my taste, and that Hobby Games book has a several page section on it, so there's at least one really solid reference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient independant sourcing, influenced the creation of other notable dice games, and just staying in print for over 30 years is a sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable dice game. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An original part of the alternative-culture movement, alongside such notables as the Illuminatus Trilogy, Grateful Dead, Mr. Natural., etc. Macduff (talk) 21:59, 24 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 00:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elixir Technology[edit]

Advertisement created by role account of the company; "sourced" to company website and press releases; no evidence of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 22:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:CORP; advertisement page Letsdrinktea (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:23, 24 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred M. Levin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Strip away the occasional WP:PEACOCK term and you are left with a generic academic; I believe this fails WP:PROF by a fair margin and is very close to a WP:CSD#A7 speedy. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence and links related to his work. Mwalla (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Delete per nom; not notable person; was unable to find any sources on the internet that suggests sufficient notability. Letsdrinktea (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedy deleted the first time due to copyright infringement. That has been corrected.

Fred Levin is a noted medical doctor. He is on the faculty of Northwestern University. He founded a institute to help deaf people who have mental illness. He has written several books on psychotherapy.

I think he is just as significant to his field as any of the other psychotherapists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Psychotherapists

If these do not make him notable according to wikipedia standards, delete the page.

Also, I beleive that a user has a grudge against me and malicously nominated the page for deletion then found a copyright infringement which he raised. I fixed it, but he is still hounding me. Mwalla (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Comment. It was I, not the nominator of the first AfD, who noted the copyvio and tagged the article for speedy deletion; and I certainly don't have a grudge against you, since I've never encountered you before now. I do have a question, though. If Levin is indeed an associate professor of psychiatry at the Feinberg School of Medicine, why doesn't he appear in the department's list of faculty members? Deor (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are correct. It appears that he is an associate professor, Clinical. I am not sure if the "clinical" indicates that he is not currently teaching. He still has contact info, but I do not know why he is not listed on the faculty page. http://directory.northwestern.edu/index.cgi?pq=fred+levin&query=handle%3D52616e646f6d4956bb1df4a118f26432b6e5e5f00d2be87357b8321a1fbf9ebcc334a5c1c9ff3728&more=1&a=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwalla (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure how to evaluate, but here is a Google Scholar search and here are (209) libraries carrying one of his books. Amazon has three of his books in print. All that said, the article itself isn't particularly illuminating on his contributions to the field. But that may require an expansion, not a deletion. Barte (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- subcomment - Amazon doesn't "have books in print"; they carry anything and everything, no matter how obscure or crappy, they are offered. Having something on Amazon is no evidence of notability, to put it mildly. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher is a small (40 books a year) indie firm called Karnac, who specialise in psychoanalytic texts. yandman 15:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I undertook a good faith Google search and Google news search and was unable to identify any significant coverage (indeed any news coverage whatsoever). Bongo matic 01:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough for me; plenty of sources exist at Google Scholar. He may not be famous, but he's notable as a scholar. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That GS search lists several publications by Levin, however, the citation counts (66, 51, 20, 20) are fairly minimal for someone working in this field. --Crusio (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And work by him is of little use, it is work about him we need. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhockey10 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the MENDAC institute had been important, I think I'd have opted for keeping. Unfortunately, it seems as unnotable as its alleged founder. yandman 15:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Does not seem to clearly pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Citation impact is not negligible, but falls short of what is needed to justify keeping the article. The same is true for book holdings; most widely held book in libraries, Mapping the mind (published in 1991 by Analytic Press), currently in less than 220 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't see reliable sources, and the number of citations doesn't seem to be big enough.--Sloane (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment FWIW, for GS I get citations 66,50,20,20,15,15,10,7, for WoK I get 20,21,12,5,5,4,3,3,2,2,1,1, for h-indicies of 7 and 5 respectively. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GS often gives huge overestimates. I did a search for some articles where I know rather well how often they have been cited (guess what I Googled... :-) and found strange discrepancies. Any stuff before, say, 1996 may get undercounted, but many other things get overcounted. Still, it's easier to run a GS search and if that doesn't give high results for publications from the last 10 years or so, it's not really necessary to go to WoK (I have to enter a rather complicated userid and password to access WoK, may be different for others who are lucky enough to have IP access). --Crusio (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the page, I admit that most of the comments above are fair statements and I support the consensus. However, he seems just as notable as most of the members of . As far as the "rank" of his research papers, this seems to be an issue related to his field, as these articles point out (I am not trying to make excuses). http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=joap.048.0643a&type=hitlist&num=94&query=zone1%3Dparagraphs%26zone2%3Dparagraphs%26title%3Dpsychoanalysis%2Bresearch%26pagenum%3D4%26sort%3Dyear%252Ca#hit1 http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=ppsy.022.0473a&type=hitlist&num=2&query=zone1%3Dparagraphs%26zone2%3Dparagraphs%26title%3Dpsychoanalysis%2Bresearch%26sort%3Dhitrank%252Cd#hit1 Best, Mwalla (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Keep. Can't see any reason to delete this. Here are the hits from Google scholar, and here from Google books. Seems notable enough. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Note to closing admin: this user opined on this AfD after being canvassed by the article's creator. Bongo matic 18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a prominent figure in his field im the American mid-west. Philip Cross (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Note to closing admin: this user opined on this AfD after being canvassed by the article's creator. Bongo matic 18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic, if you are going to make a special note of voters I canvassed, shouldn't you aslo note the voters that I canvassed who voted to delete such as Crusio, Skeptical Chemist, and Literature geek? Mwalla (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]
Note that I already participated in this debate before I was contacted by Mwalla on my talk page. --Crusio (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note to self, next time, do a better job canvassing. Mwalla (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

On the whole, I think I have to come down on the side of delete. The low citation counts (even if one takes the GS ones at face value) indicate that he has not really made a huge impact on his field. The fact that he has published books and articles is not very important here, publishing is what academics do. What counts is whether those publications influence the field and make their author in that way notable. I don't see enough evidence of that here. --Crusio (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that Mwalla is using WP:Canvassing, in particular, WP:Canvassing#Votestacking by sending messages like this one[19]: "I noticed you once posted a question about the Category:American Jews. I would like to add Fred M. Levin to that list. unfortunately, he may be deleted. Care to opine here?". See the following diffs with canvassing messages: [20]

[21][22][23][24] [25]. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. yandman 13:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be known that Skeptical Chemist has a grudge against me and initiated the page deletion because I created it. Mwalla (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Delete as a not yet/non-notable acedemic. Citations are not high enough to consider him a leader in the field, and there are too few sources saying anything about him to write anything substantial. Fails WP:Prof.Yob Mod 13:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he is not notable at all. The only way to write an article on someone who is not notbale, eg who is not published in newspapers or other independent sources is basically a lot of original research and writing "factoids" from some university site. Also as he is not well known probably the only person who will edit his page is himself or one of his patients or family or friends etc. It will be prone to bias, vandalism or whatever and no one from wiki is likely to keep an eye on someone who is unnotable. Just delete it. There are too many reasons to delete and few if any even semi valid reasons to keep it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets criteria for academia being that he has written and published several books on psychotherapy. Broadly construed (which is the test) this person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. Further, his publications demonstrated that he meets the criteria for notability as an author. Esasus (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Publishing books is not enough to be notable either under WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR, I think you need more than that to motivate a keep vote. --Crusio (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Esasus did use more than that to motivate his vote, he also said "Broadly construed (which is the test) this person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Mwalla (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

As far as I can see, his "broadly construed" rests completely on the fact that Levin has published. Whether those publications have influenced the field, let alone have made an impact, remains to be shown. --Crusio (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt seems to me that Fred Levin is equally notable as most other psychotherapists, such as John_Welwood,Thomas_Grossmann,Stephen_Ticktin, Milton_Trachtenburg,Frances_Tustin, Dror_Elimelech, Ian_Craib, Paul_R._Martin, Ursula_Fleming,Ian_Craib, Fazal_Inayat-Khan, Bill_O'Hanlon Mwalla (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) obviously applies here. --Crusio (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you find vast sections of an entire category of wikipedia to be crap. I guess you have a lot of deleting to do this weekend. Mwalla (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Who are you talking to, exactly? In any case vast sections of Wikipedia are in fact crap and should be deleted, but this is not the place to discuss that. We're dealing with one piece of crap at a time here. JBsupreme (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the comment directly above mine (is it that hard to figure that out?). Again, if you would like to delete large portions of wikipedia, you will be busy this weekend. Remember, wikipedia is not just for existing admins. Mwalla (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Delete This is an as-of-yet not notable academic which fails our inclusionary guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eric Yurken, Crusio, et al. fails WP:BIO, and WP:PROF Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:19, 26 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatgamecompany[edit]

Non-notable "indie" game company. The games are probably notable, the company is not. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd have to concur that it's not notable. While the game itself might have achieved notability the game studio has yet to do so. Likewise we should discuss deleting the founders Kellee Santiago and Jenova Chen as well. Vasant56 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly more notable than many indie studios. The notability of their games has led them as a company to receive significant popularity and attention. I believe producing an indie game as well received and as talked-about as Flower certainly establishes the notability of the company it's self. Here are a couple of examples of articles from reliable sources which discuss the actual studio: 1, 2, 3 ("when you're trying to expand videogaming's horizons single-handed and on a shoestring budget (thatgamecompany) really takes the biscuit") and this event was mentioned by various sites. However I do agree that they founders article may not be notable. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the latest Listen UP podcast from 1UP, well-known people in games journalism discuss Thatgamecompany and their distinctive style and identity as a games developer - Mp3 link. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per ChimpanzeeUK. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 00:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ChimpanzeeUK. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company's software has attracted interest well beyond the boundaries of the standard video game press [26], their games are notable (a quick glance at google shows that Fl0w is notable [27]). Most small mainstream developers fail to get anything like this much press. Someone another 10:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – notability is easily established. MuZemike 17:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom confuses Notability with importance and only offers an irrelevant JNN argument. MLauba (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You're right the game itself has gained notoriety by its innovative departure from the standard has given it its notoriety. The game didn't happen organically, it took the creative juices from the company which in itself is notable. (IMHO) --HJKeats (talk) 17:27, 27 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 00:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emancipating Something New[edit]

An article about an alleged French film from the 1930s. It was PRODed, then the PROD removed to give the creator time to source it. User:Jo7hs2 and myself tried but failed to find any reliable sources for this. I asked for help on the French Wikipedia with no success. Instead of PRODing it again, I'm pulling it into AfD in the off chance that someone might recognize it and provide a valid source. Otherwise, it should be deleted. §FreeRangeFrog 21:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non verifiable article of questionable notability. Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no imdb entry[28]. No verifiable 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. A search for the title of the short film brings up no reliable sources. In fact, it only brings up wikipedia and wikicommons. As a French film, the title may be a translation from the French, but the article provides no information to assist. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 25 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry M. George[edit]

Autobiographical BLP that was speedy deleted twice as G11, author recreated. I nominated a 3rd time for speedy as G11, author removed db tag. Subject is not notable and article reads like a résumé. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As I was posting this nomination, user Eeg1959 (likely a sock of Barry M. George) posted the following text on this AfD discussion: "I was happy to finally find Barry listed in Wikipedia. He was an excellent co-worker and contineus to be a friend to this day. Please keep this page alive." KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Totally non-notable for me. (Tagged db-bio.) Also promotional of a religious viewpoint. (Tagged for spam as well - not by me.) Peridon (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest salt as well? Peridon (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*I have requested create protection for this article at WP:RFP. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My request for salt was declined on the grounds that pages are not pre-emptively salted. I would like to request that the closing admin salt this article if the consensus of this AfD is delete. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No opinion on notability, but article has no chance of becoming encyclopedic when author with COI keeps reverting changes/tags added by other editors. . . Rcawsey (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Sure looks like blatant advertising to me. Some guy copy/pasted his own bio and resume. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability through substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Note that Business Wire is just a service for disseminating press releases, and thus useless for the purpose of establishing notability. All other coverage referenced in the article is incidental or trivial. Hqb (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a pretty standard regional sales director. I don't see any evidence for the grand claims that the subject makes about himself. I was willing to work with him on this article as I have some experience working with article subjects, but it doesn't look like the guy understands what we are trying to do here on Wikipedia. --Leivick (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Also Salt considering continued re-creations. Edward321 (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the above. No notability is demonstrated by the article using reliable independent sources. --Ged UK (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - for all the above-noted reasons of failed notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Not notable, and clear evidence of socking to try and fix an AFD by the subject of the article. Mayalld (talk) 19:24, 24 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. Non-admin closure of AfD that resulted in speedy deletion by User:Hiberniantears §FreeRangeFrog 00:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schell Games Supage[edit]

Article already deleted once by speedy delete and author has recreated Olly¹⁵⁰ 21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So speedy delete it again. So tagged. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on the talk page, the user is confused as to the location of their sandbox/user-space. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Left notice on the user's talk page [29]. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as the article space isn't a sandbox. Tavix (talk) 00:35, 24 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) Erik9 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of airline bankruptcies[edit]

No hope of expansion beyond a simple list. May be a bit too narrow as it lists only those wich have filed for bankruptcy but are still operating. Was prodded a year ago but contested. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week~~ keep but rename and expand - This topic is too narrow, but the topic of Airline Bankruptcies is big enough for its own. It should be transformed into an umbrella article for all the airline bankruptcies, but that will require additional prose. Shadowjams (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - I've moved/renamed the article to remove the timeline portion of the name, and tried to update the lead. As always, it might not be enough, but please base future discussion on the updated portion. Shadowjams (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update - I've enacted the move. Please expand accordingly. The afd will continue until closed by an admin. Shadowjams (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I agree that it doesn't need to be confined to U.S. airlines-- nor for that matter, to those that have filed for reorganization and are still operating. Most defunct airlines were acquired by others, but Pan Am, Eastern and Braniff truly went "out of business". Definitely could use some sourcing. No hope of expansion? I disagree with that. Mandsford (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly there's no reason it should be limited to the US (airlines are almost intrinsically international). To clarify, reorganizations are a form of bankruptcy. The nom might have said there was no hope of expansion because the article is titled "timeline". Maybe a move to just "Airline bankruptcies" would clear that up. I may enact that change soon if there are no objections. Shadowjams (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - I think this information is interesting, but it's fine with me if this become part of a larger article on airline bankruptcy, or is integrated into the list of defunct airlines. -- Beland (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Fielding[edit]

Articles with this name (or different capitalization, Lewis fielding) have been repeatedly created and then speedily deleted (A7) at least four times, but I can't tell if the current version is similar enough to previous ones to meet speedy deletion criteria G4. This amateur (under-15) player does not appear to meet either WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. References listed in the article have at best only a passing mention of the subject and do not support inclusion based on Wikipedia's notability criteria. Peacock (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting notability criteria. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - contested Prod, removed without reason given. Fails WP:Athlete; he gets a page if he plays a competitive first-team game. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about a totally non-notable schoolboy. If the article has been created/speedied so many times, and assuming this AfD results in deletion, suggest salting it. Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 19:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable youth player. Aecis·(away) ^talk 20:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough. Uksam88 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't think of any realistic circumstances in which a player from a pro club's under-15 team would be notable, and this player is no exception. I also find the claim that a leading manufacturer has signed him to an equipment endorsement deal extremely unlikely -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing of note appears. --ClubOranje^T 10:10, 27 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 as vandalism. One could go into the complexities of how the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies if this person is alive, and how this is a clear an unambiguous hoax if this person is dead, and I was prepared to do so … until I looked at the edit history of Maya Dolas and saw the edits by Maya dolas (talk · contribs), Shahbaz shazmin (talk · contribs), and 81.98.110.203 (talk · contribs). There's no need for complex rationales. This is plainly part of a pattern of ongoing vandalism in exactly the same vein. It was created by MAYA BHAI (talk · contribs), whom one doesn't need a checkuser to deduce is exactly the same person as all of the other accounts. Let's not waste the resources of serious, conscientious, grownup, editors on this any further. Uncle G (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maya dolas is back[edit]

Continually-recreated article that does not establish why the subject is notable or worthy of inclusion in the project ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 20:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-There is a Maya Dolas article that provides Notability; however, there is nothing in the article (or that I could find) to support the claim that he is alive. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as practically nonsense. There is nothing worth merging here. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 23 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. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Cicierega[edit]

AfDs for this article:

In short, this article fails to meet the standards set forth in WP:N. Neil is the creator of The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, a video which does manage to scrape together enough notability to warrant an article. But notability is not automatically inherited by association. To wit, the content in this article that could not be merged gracefully into the USoUD article can charitably be described as "non-notable fluff" - "video of the day" on Newground ain't exactly an Oscar, or even a Golden Globe for that matter. Badger Drink (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he was covered in the Boston Globe, Salon.com, and the Toronto Star, all of which are notable. Shii (tock) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My grandmother was mentioned in the Washington Post and the New York Times, but this does not automatically make her notable. The articles you mention are centered around USoUD, with Neil's then-young age being the other item of interest. Enough for a section in USoUD, but an entire article? Really? Badger Drink (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merged in USoUD, because Neil is clearly more important than just one of his works. Shii (tock) 01:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; news articles on him online. Yes, mostly covering the Ultimate Showdown and its popularity, but surely there is a major review of one of Lemon Demon's albums somewhere. Tezkag72^{私にどなる}_{私のはかい} 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is indeed notable, for reasons Shii has noted. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article itself is somewhat undernourished, Google News' results seem to show a sufficient degree of recognition from various media outlets. The article also shows this in excerpts such as "Several of Neil's short films have been featured on television shows such as G4's Attack of the Show!, The CW's Online Nation and CBBC's Chute!." and "The song topped the weekly "Funny Five" and became #1 of 2006 on the Dr. Demento Show.". To that end, though, Animutation and Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny should be merged with this, as they are both subtopics and more lacking in content. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 07:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with above comment and further not that USOUD does not seem to warrant its own article, list of fighters and crap like that seems like a ridiculous thing for an article. On the other hand, Potter Puppet Pals have gained enough attention that they should have their OWN article --Mattgcn (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was all ready to say "delete", assuming from the nomination that Ultimate Showdown was this person's only notable work, but a look at the article reveals much more. A merge to the Ultimate Showdown article would be inappropriate. I'm tempted to agree with Haipa Doragon's recommendation to merge everything here and possibly even to create a Potter Puppet Pals article. USoUD was one heck of a flash in the pan, but long-lasting notability appears elusive. Powers ^T 14:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At this point, Potter Puppet Pals (particularly The Mysterious Ticking Noise) is more notable than the Ultimate Showdown, with the millions of views each, the YouTube Awards [30], and appearances on Fox News, Good Morning America [31], and local news [32] [33]. With at least 3 internet memes that got attention from other media, I figure that's notable enough. Chiphead (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The features in television shows and news articles, and a couple of internet clips which seem pretty popular push him just over the notability threshold.--Sloane (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neil is more than just TUSOUD. Plus his works had appeared on notable outlets, as per the above arguments. Furthermore, I do agree that the pages for TUSOUD and Animutation should be merged. -- MrBiggles42 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Notable and referenced. EagleFan (talk) 01:44, 25 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 Chandra. MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chandraatri[edit]

Delete an admin declined an editor's speedy request, apparently thinking that this is worth saving. Reasonable minds may differ on that - this one liner provides virtually no context or content. And of course, no sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense--speedily if possible. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose that it be redirected to Chandra because

it says here Atri#Trinity test of Anasuyaa that Chandraatri is the son of Atri and Anasuya
it says here Chandra#legends that Chandra is the son of the same two deities
the page Anasuya backs this up
Chandraatri is "Chandra" plus "atri", and I imagine that its literal meaning could be "chandra, son of atri"
Soma, mentioned in the article, is identified as being the same deity as chandra (see both articles)
"Chandatreya" is identified as being the same deity as soma in this article, and an atreya is a decendent of atri, accoring to that article, i.e. chandra-atreya, i.e chandra, descendant of atri

- and therefore I think that Chandraatri is a variant spelling of Chandra (i.e. a variant transliteration from Hindi or whatever language these things were originally written in, i.e. because they won't be using roman script). Needs someone who actually knows something about this to confirm this. James500 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if this page is deleted, it may or will be necessary to point the link to Chandraatri on the page atri at chandra. James500 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at the contributions for the editor who created this article, he was editing the article atri immediately beforehand, so I think that he saw Chandraatri red-linked on that page, clicked on it and said "this is what Chandraatri means". James500 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Don't you need someone who knows who Soma is, and why they are not called Soma but something else, one of two things? *after clicking Soma* aha! Now I see. Grammar is a beautiful thing. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per James500. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Magic.Wiki (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not notable, even if the deity is, the article does not meet Wikipedia standards. There is no content to Merge, though if the creator has information, he is free to add it to a current article, or use the Sandbox until the article is ready. May be speedy deletable under A1 or A7. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the page is admittedly no good as an article does not preclude it being redirected if Chandraatri is an accepted/acceptable/commonly used variant spelling or variant name for Chandra, or even if it is a plausible misnomer (if I understand what CSD R3 says correctly). My understanding of AfD is that if it is deleted it cannot be redirected.James500 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding CSD A7 - looking at the contributions of the user who wrote this article, I can't find an explicit request that the article be deleted, and he has not blanked the page (though he has created the page chandratre).James500 (talk) 20:51, 28 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(Non-admin Closure) Imperat§ r^(Talk) 22:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War books[edit]

Extremely poorly wrtitten; no references; little (no) verifitability Probably Original Research. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already a war novel article; this has nothing to add to that article or to that encyclopedia, and I second the comment on the writing. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is not required. We redirect, or merge and redirect, duplicate articles, that cover the same subject by alternative titles. And it's fairly obvious that this is a valid alternative name.
  Incidentally: I want to know when World War 11 happened. Why wasn't I informed? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correction: there is nothing worth saving but the name (Uncle G. is correct, thank you). And World War 11, of course. Say, Uncle, can't you just go ahead and do that to bring this AfD to a speedy close? Drmies (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It happened shortly after World War Z, in 19XX. What, didn't you study history in school? ;) Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, it occurred in an alternate dimension where Roman numerals weren't invented and World War 1 took place in 1914 :P Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to War novel, as it they cover the same topic. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems pretty unanimous that the article should be a "redirect" as "book" is a common replacement for "novel", I'm going to redirect it now. :) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar Responsibility Quarantine[edit]

Completely unsourced, non-notable, and dare I say irrelevant. Dmitry Brant (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--is there not a speedy category for WP:MADEUPINONEDAY? Drmies (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Drake equation, haha. WP:MADEUP at best. §FreeRangeFrog 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, FreeRangeFrog, I would give him the benefit of doubt for WP:OR ;-) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-wikipedia ghits. JulesH (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable topic. Zero Google scholar search result. Salih (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:02, 24 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. Fails WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Charles Wright[edit]

Hoax, no sources to verify this player. In a previous version it was claimed he played for Man City but there's no mention of him on their website. Prod was contested. Jpeeling (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoaxAgathoclea (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. No player of that name has ever been on the books at Manchester City. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant hoax as author and some other contributors edit histories attest --ClubOranje^T 10:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Giant Snowman 16:15, 24 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bacterial one-hybrid system[edit]

This article seems to represent original research. It would be more suitable as a submission to a scholarly journal. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep There seem to be multiple references. A little technical, but so are many Wikipedia articles. DGG (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a new and emerging technology and it will be useful for Wikipedia to have a quick reference to this method. Definitely not original research, but a reference to a useful idea akin to the Yeast two-hybrid page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-hybrid_screening). Victor Jensen
Keep Not very well written, but it doesn't appear to be WP:OR, and there are a number of references provided in reputable sources. Anaxial (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real method with enough traction that an independent article seems reasonable. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:12, 27 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 22:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto the movie (series)[edit]

New article consisting solely of a table listing who did and didn't appear in the first three Naruto films. Creator may have been shooting for a List of Naruto films, but this wasn't the right way to do it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't second you concerning this article as this one was only up for 15 hours and it got Afd-ed regardless the quality of the article which is extremely poor. Even of prod would not have been that fast. I concede that the article name is not suitable. I concede that the article was started from the wrong end. I concede that making a table like in Naruto:_Clash_of_Ninja_(series)#Playable_characters is not appropriate. but still :( --KrebMarkt 20:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not against the possibility of this AfD being closed as keep, with the suggestion to rename and broaden the article. however, it seemed to me like it would be easier to just start over, hence the AfD. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yea, Naruto would have a movies spin-out article eventually but not in that form. While your intent is respectable, its perception may not be sadly. I hope you won't pass for bully --KrebMarkt 21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, I'm acutely aware of the intimidation a big red "this page is up for deletion" banner can cause... My intent definitely isn't to bully or intimidate, but I'm not blaming anyone who might think otherwise. =( 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unnecessary. Naruto has a character list. Beyond that, a simple note in the film's production section (presuming they are notable) discussing the creation of film only characters is all that is necessary. Making a table of who did and did not appear in the films seems both redundant and extremely trivial. I'd imagine most characters did not, from the large pool available, with only the main ones being consistent. They are already far over used in the video game articles, much less for something like this. Surprised it wasn't just CSDed for a complete lack of context beyond those who know what Naruto is.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about CSD, but was too lazy to see if anything was applicable (since I don't have the criteria memorized like you evidently do =) ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I don't have them all memorized, but I do have Friendly and Twinkle :D -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1, no context. This appears to be a misplaced template? But even as a template, it would be completely unnecessary. --Farix (Talk) 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A table showing who appear in each movie, same concept than the one used to show which character appear in each Naruto battle video games but still a failure.--KrebMarkt 20:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator of this article made no effort to salvage the situation. Wrong article name, wrong way to handle the subject and wrong way to answer the Afd (no reaction at all) --KrebMarkt 16:06, 27 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knewton[edit]

This organization is non-notable and the entry reads like an advertisement. Yoshimoto2 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization is notable; they have been written up on TechCrunch and have attracted strong investments. Yoshimoto2 has no history. Outside best practices. Keep this site clean!

Keep Pretty obvious that even if it requires a rewrite, is potentially useful to Wikipedia. It is also pretty notable("$2.5 million in investment capital from Accel Partners, Reid Hoffman, Ron Conway, and Josh Kopelman at First Round Capital." with a good reference), and does not have the advertisement tone. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 22:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has 5 independent sources, most of which seem to be reliable. Doesn't look like an advert to me. See no reason to delete. JulesH (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Company is backed by well-known investors, was written up at length on TechCrunch in an article that was republished on washingtonpost.com, and was chosen by Amazon.com as a finalist in their startup competition. Young company but clearly notable with solid references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnnotableWorldFigure (talk • contribs) 03:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs some work but appears to be notable enough. There have been a bunch of new articles on test prep companies and this is the first one I've seen that has reasonable references.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:41, 27 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger rockfish[edit]

Article previously AfD'd that seems to only tell a story and may be copyvio'ed from another website, whose citations don't help the fact it is only a thesis or argument, or a story ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable and verifiable subject ([34]). Citations, style, tone and copyvio concerns can be dealt with by editing. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What story would that be? By my reading it seems to be attempting to tell the reader about a species of fish, Sebastes nigrocinctus, whose article on the French Wikipedia can be found at fr:Sebastes nigrocinctus, whose Commons picture category is at commons:Category:Sebastes nigrocinctus, and which has been redlinked at Sebastes since February 2006. You should be thanking Mmcbride094 (talk · contribs) for adding an article on a subject that we've wanted for at least three years, not nominating xyr article for deletion repeatedly just because xe is a novice editor who isn't yet familiar with wiki markup. You're an editor famliar with the markup. Your rôle in these circumstances is to help the novice editor with the markup. Xe even cited sources that fully support the content, for goodness' sake! Uncle G (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no clear reason given for deletion. Article is both notable and verifiable. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well-sourced and about a real species. Nomination appears completely unrelated to the article. Edward321 (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a well sourced stub about a real animal, and now has had some good copyedits. ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Tim Vickers. MuffledThud (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - aggressive editing since nomination has made this article a keeper. Side issue: the article now has a striking picture of a tiger rockfish. Excellent work by all who added to the article over the past four days. B.Wind (talk) 19:15, 27 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, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

50 Classic Cartoons[edit]

While some of the individual shorts may have notability, this VHS only collection has none. Search only comes up with individual users trying to sell copies on eBay, Amazon, or the like Wolfer68 (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reason that I can see for a directory of what's on a video put together by Anchor Bay Entertainment. This is straight off the back of the box, with a list of titles and no clue as to why any of these are classics. I've never known anyone to watch one of these for its historical value, although it makes a great babysitter if you have a preschooler. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be just one of the many compilations companies release featuring public domain cartoons (meaning they don't have to pay any money to the studio that owns them). No signs that this one is notable. TJ Spyke 23:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with TJ Spyke -- it is just a non-notable compilation of public domain cartoons. There is no evidence this was a significant video release. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of the multitude of packages offered by the company (they now have a DVD set of 300 cartoons which is just as unworthy of a Wikipedia article). There is zero review/discussion coverage on reliable media, just listings on various commercial sites. This would be just as non-notable if it had 50 winners of the Academy Awards and had an equal lack of media coverage. B.Wind (talk) 19:23, 27 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cart computer[edit]

Does not exist outside of this Wikipedia article. -- samj _in^out 19:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research or something made up in one day. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Computer carts exist, but the phrase "cart computer" appears to be a neologism and no sources are cited for the content of the article. —Snigbrook 20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Move to a different title and Add References, or Merge. Remember that Wikipedia is Not a Paper Encyclopedia, and will contain items as this. I think we should mark this as a Stub, find some good references or images, and give it a better name. I, as a recent visitor to a hospital (not a paitient), as well as attending school, and even a nursing home, have seen cart computers in abundance. This should probably be merged with something like "computer cart" or something along the lines of moving electronics. This is Notable, and it does exist. A cart computer is, as stated, a desktop computer (with monitor and tower) sitting on a rolling cart, plugged into a wall. It is a space saving item, used to place a PC in a hall or tight spot. However, it needs references and expansion, so a lot of work will probably be done if it stays (which I hope it does). --TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What references were you proposing to add? The closing administrator is not a Magic Reference Making Machine, capable of conjuring sources from thin air. Deletion policy is clear. If no sources exist, there should be no article. The nominator has looked for sources. Xe showed what xe did in xyr nomination. Xe found none. All that you've done is just waved your hands and made unsupported claims that sources exist, in some place that you haven't specified, under some alternative name that you haven't suggested. That's not enough. Please make proper contributions to AFD discussions. If you want to demonstrate that a subject is notable (which is not your subjective estimation of its importance or worthiness, by the way) then cite multiple independent sources documenting it, in depth, written and published by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, as Wikipedia:Notability says will demonstrate notability. Nothing less will do. Put in the effort. Don't just wave your hands and hope. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak delete - I wouldn't be coming down so hard on TurtleShroom here. It's fair to say that these things are pretty common and you don't need a explicit source for things that are trivially obvious or fundamental (this isn't a perfect example, but Alphanumeric keyboard demonstrates my point). That said, I don't think that any possible combination of two obvious items justifies an article especially if that combination, either the word of the concept, doesn't have notability, which is demonstrated through WP:RS. So, with that in mind, I'm a weak delete. Shadowjams (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. alphanumeric keyboard, a subject that is documented on pages 63 et seq. of ISBN 9780130461094 for starters, not only has sources available, but is easy to source. It took me 20 seconds with Google Books to find that. In addition to reading the page mentioned by 160.39.213.152 above, read User:Uncle G/On sources and content#There are no exceptions to everything. You've just demonstrated, yet again, the error of the line of thinking that there are exceptions to everything. Uncle G (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm familiar with this interpretation of WP:Notability (you should add those cites to spacebar as well) and it is a misinterpretation of the WP:RS policy. The fact that there are dueling essays on the topic should indicate that this interpretation is not official WP policy and is at best a persuasive argument one way or another. I would point out that the WP:RS policy applies not only to article notability but also to article-content notability. On the latter point especially, there is a form of judicial notice that exists on wikipedia, if not explicit in policy then in almost unanimous practice. This discussion is about the former type. I would concede there is more room for argument on that point. For the record, we are in complete agreement in on this particular article, and if memory serves me, on a number of others as well. Shadowjams (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are clearly not familiar with it you think that it's about notability. It's about verifiability, as the pages themselves state, and which is the issue under discussion here. Go and read the pages again. The error in your statement about not needing sources should become clear. As I said, it's a common canard, and you've once again demonstrated the fallacy of it.
        You are also confused on another point. There's no such thing as "article-content notability". Notability governs subjects and topics, and whether they should be given their own articles, or articles at all. It is not a content policy. Our content policies are verifiability, the prohibition of original research, the copyright policy, and the NPOV. Verifiability requires that everything must have a reliable source, without exception, and most definitely is official policy, contrary to what you are arguing here.
        There are no exceptions to everything; and no sources existing means no article. Uncle G (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There is such a thing as article content notability, but you're right that it's not governed directly by WP:NOTABLITY. I don't claim it does, "However, because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability nonetheless affects article content. Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject....an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details."^{WP:Notability}
        That's what I mean when I say "article content notability." That, plus the other explicit policies you mention. WP:RS is primarily an article-content policy and a notability reference policy. My response is quite clear that WP:RS is relevant to article notability but it is not the policy as to article notability. That is governed by WP:Notability which happens to rely heavily on whether or not there are reliable sources. But sources do not make notability, nor is there anything implicit in WP:notability that indicates there isn't a sort of judicial notice with regard to blatantly obvious facts. Again, the dueling essays on the point demonstrate the contentiousness of the issue. Shadowjams (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:MADEUP. A computer on a cart may exist, but that doesn't mean it is anything more than someone shoving a PC and a battery on a cart post-production. Ironholds (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reviewing nom's Gsearch.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Eye (drug)[edit]

This article has been tagged with notability issues since September 2008 and has been unreferenced since creation. It's an exceedingly minor aspect of the series Cowboy Bebop that probably doesn't merit mention beyond individual episode summaries, and much of the article consists of original research. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, extremely minor fictional element that fails WP:N and WP:WAF. At best, I'd imagine a one sentence mention in the main article is all that is needed. Nothing to merge as its mostly personal opinion and synthesis rather than legitimately verifable content. Nor is a redirect necessary as it isn't a likely search term. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those who created this article overdid themselves. Too In-universe to be of any help even amateurs of Cowboy Bebop won't crave for a such article. More seriously this article lack of any evidence of verifiability where is fact and when start original research or personal opinion. As i usually write, the quality of a manga/anime coverage should not be weighted by the number of related articles. More articles isn't better and in this case more articles isn't wiser. --KrebMarkt 20:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it can be very easily covered in specific episodes and/or the main article if necessary. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor fictional element whose notability has not been established via coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fictional dug is only featured as a plot element in first episode out of a 26 episode series. The rest of the series, it is simply a background element. The rest of the article is purely original research. --Farix (Talk) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first episode actually focuses on a concentrated form called Bloody Eye - not that it has any bearing on this discussion, just figured I'd use my daily geek point here. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:27, 24 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the children (politics)[edit]

This entire article consists of original research. No references are cited that actually discuss the use of the phrase. The only sources provided are what the author(s) believe to be examples of the phrase's use. This is original research by synthesis. *** Crotalus *** 15:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; few sources, and the phrase is not commonly used or recognized. Tezkag72^{私にどなる}_{私のはかい} 22:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has some cites, mostly good. This is in fact, quite recognized, and has been used by Democrats and Republicans alike since at least 1972. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC) This is very easy to rescue. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article about the phrase and the idea and tag for expansion. Current sources would indicate that this article could benefit from WP:CLEANUP and expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've heard the phrase used, but I don't think it deserves an article per the reasoning of the nom and Tezkay72. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Platitude, Truism or Thought-terminating cliché since these cover the general topic of phrases of the motherhood and apple pie sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article consists of purely original research (see WP:OR), with no a single proper source (see WP:V and WP:N).--Sloane (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important article on politics that deserves a seperate article. The sources relate to the article and are useful. They show that the article is not original research. The sources actually make sense and there are quite a few. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but also nuke most of the content of the old article. In fact, I saw this article a few weeks back and have been meaning to edit it. It is unquestionably true that this is a political tactic / slogan that has been used, and I dare say one that merits an article... but the current article seems to be under the strange idea that this is a logical fallacy, which it's not (well, the stupid way it's phrased in the article is perhaps a fallacy, but nobody claims ANYTHING good for children is good - the real argument is normally whether a policy actually is good "for the children."). In fact, I have been bold and removed a considerable amount of the article just now, and rephrased some of the intro. SnowFire (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure synthesis of published sources. If kept, severely trim. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources exist for the (over)use of this political rhetoric: Scenes from the Political Playground: An Analysis of the Symbolic Use of Children in Presidential Campaign Advertising, The Evocative Nature of Kin Terminology in Political Rhetoric, The Politics of Family. According to this review, The Anti-Intellectual Presidency: The Decline of Presidential Rhetoric from George Washington to George W. Bush quotes “Well over half of all references to children in State of the Union addresses since 1790 were uttered by our last five presidents”. – 74 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Mathcool and 74 above. MuffledThud (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a phrase I think this is notable and widespread enough that it should merit a well-sourced and documented entry in the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrog 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A particularly prevalent form of the "thought terminating cliche", the "Won't somebody think of the children?" meme/fallacious argument/moral panic justification is an increasingly common part of our lives, and deserves a seperate article of its own. Deleting an article for WP:SYN reminds me of cutting off head to get rid of pimple on face, as WP:SYN can only occur with WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana0182 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep after sources have been brought to light by the squiggly mark guy (sorry I'm not sure how to address you). Still needs to be cleaned up, detrivialized, and written with the new references, but notability has been shown. Themfromspace (talk) 04:23, 28 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, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network's Tom and Jerry Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cartoon Network's Tom and Jerry Show

This page hardly seems notable. The Cool Kat (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So if Cartoon Network shows old Tom and Jerry cartoons, it's "Cartoon Network's Tom and Jerry Show"? If it was Cartoon Network's show, there would be more farting. Mandsford (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this was notable, there's no way that there would be enough substance here that wouldn't overlap with the original cartoon's page. fuzzy510 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These pages were created by the same user that also need deleting "Tom and Jerry's Funhouse on TBS", "Tom and Jerry music", and "Tom and Jerry (direct-to-video film series)". Neither one of these pages are notable, perhaps a merge with Tom and Jerry would do? The Cool Kat (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't meet notability guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 15:54, 26 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, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qcl compliant[edit]

A phrase made up one day by someone with no indication of its notability. --kelapstick (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's MADEUP -- not finding this anywhere. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 22 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. Noting, however, that "this is an important page" is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Regardless, there's a clear consensus here not to delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer viruses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete.

“

A single comprehensive list would make sense, but no definitive list currently exists.

”

- There is a list of cross-referenced malware from av-test.org, released regularly each month, available here.

- Second, which vendor's detection are we going by?

- Third, this list is incomplete, as noted in the clause at the beginning; technical users would much rather search a security vendor's library of detections.

- Fourth, this list does not appeal to less technically inclined users looking for removal/treatment information; about 90% of the wikilinks are red. Vendors already provide a list of their detections, and most, such as Symantec, cross reference their detections with other vendors. And vendors provide comprehensive technical and removal instructions.

- What platform:
  - Windows? Which version? XP? Vista? Many XP viruses/trojans can't touch Vista. ^[1]
  - Mac?
  - Linux? If so, which distro?
  - DOS?
  - Unix?

TechOutsider (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lists are based on computer viruses that have articles in Wikipedia. The reliable sources tell us what is a virus and the lists are updated as new articles are created, without any need to decide which vendor list takes precedence. Wikipedia is not a "how to" site, and the fact that other vendors provide instructions for removal is no reason to delete this article. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or nominate all of List of computer viruses (A-D), List of computer viruses (E-K), List of computer viruses (L-R), List of computer viruses (S-Z), Linux malware and List of computer viruses (all) as this page by itself is just an index (an index without which the others are hard to find). (There was a previous afd which is not linked.) Occuli (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: granted, it could use some work - but deleting is not fixing. — Ched (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: To much interlinking of these pages to delete, would cause too many redlinks. — Ched (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)**[reply]
- Speedy Keep. It is an important article. Junk Police (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete this and List of computer viruses (A-D), List of computer viruses (E-K), List of computer viruses (L-R), List of computer viruses (S-Z). We already have Timeline of notable computer viruses and worms, which serves this purpose much better.--Sloane (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists work synergistically with related extant material published on the Wikipedia. (WP:LISTS) --Mr Accountable (talk) 09:14, 25 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 nominator. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perley G. Nutting[edit]

~~Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Can't find anything significant about him except his presidency at the OSA, and the society has had dozens of presidents since its founding.~~ FingersOnRoids 00:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep As president of the Optical Society of America he passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria #6 "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society".--kelapstick (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google News search clearly shows notability, including obituary coverage in the New York Times and Washington Post that details his contributions to science: [35]. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious notability as founder of a scientific society that is still around and as one of its presidents. The fact that online sources can be found for someone who passed away in 1949 is very telling, too. Perhaps someone can add the info from the obit that Pastor Theo located to the article. --Crusio (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the information from the New York Times plus additional information. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like kelapstick and Crusio, I also think he meets WP:PROF criterion #6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society). Probably meets other criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. If founding OSA and the major newspaper obits weren't enough (and I think they are) there's also the (disputed) claim of priority for neon signage. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep as per above. There should be a rule that a nominator can't nominate an article for deletion after x number of snowball keeps. Ikip (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Are you saying that I should have withdrawn my nomination sooner? I'm sorry, but somehow I forgot to add this to my watchlist. FingersOnRoids 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above. EagleFan (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn I withdraw this nomination in good faith and with my apologies. I can't believe that I missed #6 on WP:PROF. Sorry, FingersOnRoids 21:44, 23 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 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WoTMUD[edit]

I tried to PROD this, but apparently it's "not uncontroversial" (although they couldn't be bothered to give any actual reasons why the article should be kept). At any rate, this article cites no sources, except an invalid one, which appears to just be comments made by one of the MUD's creator at some unspecified point. No sources appear on a Google News Archive search [36], [37]. We need sources to have an encyclopedia article, per WP:WEB and WP:N and WP:V. This would probably fit in at the Wheel of Time Wiki, where people could document this MUD without the need to cite the sources Wikipedia requires. Miss Communication (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - [38] attempts to show where this MUD has been reviewed, but the links provided all seem to be for self-published material (player/user reviews, etc). Nass says "There have also been professional sites which have done reviews, unfortunately I have lost these." - I wonder what these might have been? Will gladly reverse my !vote if they turn up. Marasmusine (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not uncontroversial? I would disagree with that assumption. It's just a non-notable MUD, I don't see anything here worth keeping. Tavix (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - non-notable website A7. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dropped the relevant info whole into Wheel of Time, and that's pretty much all that can be salvaged here. I see no sources, unfortunately. rootology (C)(T) 16:17, 26 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 00:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony: The Musical[edit]

Non-notable school musical, probable joke, unreferenced MuffledThud (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony: The Musical's page should NOT be removed as everyone desereves something like this. This is the show's way of telling people about it and why it is so great. I think it would be wrong to delete this page DON'T delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurplePogoStix (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete Unsourced (I wonder why). No evidence. Not yet on stage so no notability anyway. (New musical by Sondheim - yes, notable before staging. By Ramirez - no.) From the sound of it, probably wouldn't achieve notability if it did exist and got staged. I could be wrong. Prove it. Apart from which, Wikipedia is not a place to promote things. We'll record your work when it's worth recording. We aren't here to help you up the ladder. Peridon (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable, non-notable, spam, and crystal balling. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 25 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 per WP:CSD#A1 Pedro : Chat 07:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shot book[edit]

I think this is just made up. JaGa^talk 17:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per A1, G1, and WP:MADEUP — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikTheBikeMan (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete Dictionary definition.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no similar results on Google, likely WP:MADEUP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek69 (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete per prior comments fuzzy510 (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, dicdef, no context. --Sigma 7 (talk) 05:24, 27 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. Nomination withdrawn Tikiwont (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

There's already an entry on Wiktionary for "bugger" (see wikt:bugger) -calvinps- (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are quite a few entries for words that are also in wikitionary. No reason to delete this. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined term with multiple variants and accompanying sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adds some social commentary that wiktionary lacks.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and why is it being debated again so soon after the last keep in the afd closed on 25 Jan 09? Occuli (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like a referenced, encyclopedic article and much more than a DICDEF. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Far more than a dicdef. RasterFaAye (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the definite result will be keep. :|

Any way I can withdraw this AfD?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvinps (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 February 2009

You certainly can. RasterFaAye (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is much more than just a dictionary entry. Warrington (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this AfD. 21:25, 23 February 2009

This AfD is now closed. The end result is "Keep".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvinps (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic Ticket Defense Strategies[edit]

Another original research article about traffic tickets. WP:NOTMANUAL. ~~SIS~~ 16:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An essay on the subject, pure OR. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this a fine article. Law Informer 16:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, and personal essay. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic style and OR.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the last sentence of the first paragraph, this is spam, and should have been speedied as such. Edward321 (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a similar unsalvagable diatribe about "driver responsibility" laws that is found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoid Your Next Traffic Ticket and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Driver Responsibility Assessment. Flowanda | Talk 02:51, 25 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. Essay. The speedy criterion was WP:IAR yandman 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid Your Next Traffic Ticket[edit]

Couldn't find a proper Speedy Delete criteria to list this under, so I'm bringing it here. Unsourced, original research, WP:NOTMANUAL, not encyclopedic, etc. Delete. ~~SIS~~ 16:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I think the "No context" criterion applies here: Wikipedia:Speedy_Delete#Articles. Cazort (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No context? There's plenty of context, I think. But it's basically an essay. ~~SIS~~ 16:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTMANUAL. Wikipedia is not a manual. For that, try WikiHow. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic style, OR, and belongs to WikiHow.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So that would be transwiki right? Except I don't think this is free content. Nerfari (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. We do not maintain transwikification queues for non-Foundation wikis, and even if we did, we wouldn't for WikiHow, ironically because this is free content, and WikiHow is not. WikiHow uses a non-free copyright licence ("-NC"), to which free content licenced under the GFDL is not transferrable. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, just delete then please. Nerfari (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useful info, but not encyclopaedic. The LHD bias is not reason to delete, but if Keep is achieved should be addressed. In a lot of the world, the left lane is the slow one... Peridon (talk)
Speedy Delete Spam advertising a website. Edward321 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The website was added by Nerfari, not by the article's author. I think Nerfari is suggesting that the page is a copyright violation. Calathan (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that might be the case. Nerfari (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is unencyclopedic and either original research or a copyright violation. If this is a copyright violation, then speedy delete. Calathan (talk) 18:27, 24 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 00:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kayaking and canoeing on the Chattooga River[edit]

Basically a description of how to canoe on the river. WP:NOTMANUAL comes to mind. WP:NOTTRAVEL, too. I don't see how this can become an encyclopedic entry. ~~SIS~~ 16:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing is covered here that isn't mentioned here. Also, WP:NOTMANUAL. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be part travel guide, and part howto -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Sands[edit]

Non notable novel that failed to get published and has now been self published. Author effectively states that it is non notable. Gave opportunity to reference, non applied. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no notability here, though there are a lot of words. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~SIS~~ 16:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BOOKS. The does not satisfy the notability guidelines. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:BOOKS bigtime. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:05, 24 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 22:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Friedman (attorney)[edit]

Individual has been in the news, true, but he is not any more noteworthy than thousands of other lawyers Therblig (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lead counsel in multiple high profile suits, multiple news articles--but they need to be added more completely. . There probably are a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of notable lawyers. It's a very large profession, with about a million lawyers in the US alone. NOT PAPER, remember. DGG (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a lead counsel appointed in every securities class action, by operation of statute (the Prviate Securites Litigation Reform Act of 1995), and many of the cases are "high profile" (i.e., newsworthy) merely because they involve large sums of money. But being apponted lead counsel in a newsworthy class action does not in and of itself mark the attorney so appointed as worthy of an encyclopedic entry. It is simply not unusual. It is, in fact, routine. As the Wikipedia guidelines instruct, just because an individual's name appears in the news associated with a newsworthy event such as a litigation does not mean that the individual is therefore notable. The Madoff scandal broke in December 2008, and I think not coincidentally, the bio appeared in December 2008. As originally written the bio tracked nearly word-for-word the lawyer's bio on the firm's website. It seemed to me, admittedly based merely on circumstance, that the article was created to advertise the firm's representation of Madoff victims. Dozens of other law firms also represent Madoff victims. The news media picked up on Friedman in particular in part because the firm he works for was indicted a few years ago. Some criteria for notability in the Wikipedia guidelines include: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." This lawyer has not recived any significant awards, and has made no contribution that is part of the enduring record in his field. There is no evidence that has authored anything significant, or that he has argued anything significant, or that he is particulary innovative or talented in his field. I don't think this lawyer satisfies any of the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. I therefore recommend deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therblig (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles given as references aren't about Friedman, they're about Madoff. --GRuban (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about this attorney as compared to the thousands of others in the same field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.131.98 (talk) 19:43, 27 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, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Managementese[edit]

While I enjoy this kind of content, it's not encyclopedic. It's inherently subjective and editorial. Underpants 15:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The most objective the article could get is to be a pure collection of published statements like these, i.e. it would have to copy them word-for-word, i.e. in its best form, it would be a copyvio. --Underpants 15:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not exactly a neologism, but not encyclopedic content either. Cool3 (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge some of them to Marketing speak, which isn't dissimilar. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost belongs on Uncyclopedia.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Humorous, but unencyclopaedic. Bondegezou (talk) 12:18, 26 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 Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 4. MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alamela[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) as she is only known for appearing on Australia's Next Top Model and a few minor commercial adverts. Plastikspork (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 (Non-notable person). ApprenticeFan (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This inadequate argument for deletion could also be used against the numerous other pages of Australia's Next Top Model contestants, ie Jordan Loukas, Samantha Downie, Demelza Reveley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturaltrust (talk • contribs) 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#All or nothing and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited. And, thank you for bringing these other four to my attention. I will look through them and nominate the ones that aren't sufficiently notable. Plastikspork (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfortunately chiefly notable at this stage due to what happened on Australia's Next Top Model, but appears to be someone going further after the participation in the television program. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 11:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Compromise? Her page could be redirected to Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 4, which would preserve the page history and allow it to be revived if she accomplished more to make her sufficiently notable to warrant the creation of her own page. Plastikspork (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I normally regard the goings-on of so-called reality shows as sub-trivial. However, this girl seems to be behaving with a modicum of decency and to be getting on with real real life - unlike the winner of the show. While not yet having achieved anything that I would regard as particularly notable (I don't regard models as particularly notable with the possible exceptions of Twiggy who is intelligent, and Naomi Campbell about whom I won't comment), she has become the subject of notability. (Some are born notable, some achieve notability, some have notability thrust upon them...) I would go with the idea of a redirect, but with the basic info of the controversy and a brief note of her subsequent career as well added to the main article. I would not be displeased with a Keep result if the others involved in the trouble still have articles. I know that 'she's got one, so should I' is not Wikipedia policy, but... Peridon (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 4 per Plastikspork -Misty Willows (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 4 per Plastikspork. THF (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to preserve some information about him in relation to a larger context. Themfromspace (talk) 04:13, 28 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Fischer[edit]

Non-notable artist; potentially a hoax, a résumé at best. Google search yielded one person with a similar name, but biographical information does not match WP article. A search on one of the art galleries that supposedly represents the subject artist does not show him. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No information found to support notability. First gallery claimed as representing does not list this name as a member: [39]. The other named gallery mentions an "Andreas Fischer Muñoz" as having had an exhibition there for a month in 2006:[40], which could be the same person, but searching on that name only returns the same gallery's page. Arakunem^Talk 15:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, nothing to suggest notability. Cool3 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep !!!. Wrong information above: Andres Fischer is the same artist as Andres Fischer Muñoz or Andreas Fischer Muñoz. He has several reviews in important newspapers and magazines (Kunstbulletin, ArtNews, Swissinfo...)
- Comment: The preceding unsigned comment was added by WP:SPA Smartmoves. FYI, exclamation points are better rendered as "strong keep". Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like an advertisement with no established notability. If it is an article about another individual, who is notable but with a slightly different name, then a new page can be created, and this page can be redirected there. Plastikspork (talk) 05:17, 28 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 University of Texas at Austin. Only for the main article, not the supplementary additions to the debate, as there was less discussion of these. I feel it also necessary to echo DGG's comment here: if the nominator believed that a merge was the most appropriate course of action, why was this brouht to AfD? Begin discussions on the talkpages of the other two rankings pages if merges are desirable, as these debates seem to indicate is true. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Texas at Austin rankings[edit]

Per WP:IINFO and WP:SYN. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Duke University rankings for discussion of similar page that resulted in a merge. Merge/Delete. Bluedog423^Talk 17:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they all relate to university-specific ranking lists:

Delete - notable rankings can be adequately covered in the main UT at Austin article, no need for a separate article on all possible rankings of the school or individual departments. Afroghost (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Same applies for Purdue and Penn State, delete these two lists, too. Afroghost (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Afroghost. This should be incorporated into the main UTA article. Themfromspace (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the two other universities' lists have been added and my vote goes for them as well. Themfromspace (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're not the Consumer Reports of college rankings. All of them are subjective data and not used in any way to develop a NPOV view of each school. Nate • (chatter) 13:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is raw data, not an encyclopedia article. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge to Main article This is useful information, though perhaps not for its own article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; no objection to a merge. Well sourced; useful. TerriersFan (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As we did before. I don't see the utility of bringing merges here as a matter of routine. It shouldnt be difficult to get consent on the article talk pages, especially after the first decision here. DGG (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each, but agree this should never have come to AfD, i don't even see a talk page notification about possible merging.Yob Mod 13:58, 25 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, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy_Schwartz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Randy Schwartz

Delete: Lack of notability/blatant self promotion $this->CryptAnalysis() (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC guideline for inclusion as a drummer for a solo singer. Article was written by a single purpose account editor who had edited only twice outside this... and it was for the article of Randy Schwartz's "boss", Brett Dennen. B.Wind (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 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. While it is a very close debate, in reviewing the arguments I feel that the statements made by User:Struway2 and User:TerriersFan carry the most weight. Sources have been found, including several that mention Coleman in more than a passing manner; however, each of these, without exception, speak only to the pending transfer to Everton, not to any actual aspect of his football playing. If Coleman is notable, he is notable for being a football player, not for being a subject of a run-of-the-mill transfer. WP:ATHLETE does clearly state that a subject must play at the highest professional level of a sport to be considered notable. Following the transfer to Everton and his first appearance there, then there should be no problem with this. Currently, this is not the case, and there are not enough reliable sources that provide evidence of his notability to justify an article at this time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Coleman[edit]

Player fails WP:ATHLETE; he has never played in a fully-pro league (League of Ireland is only semi-pro) and youth caps do not give notability. Originally a PROD which was a removed by an IP user, with no reason given. Giant Snowman 13:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn until he plays a professional match. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He may fail WP:Athlete, but that is itself a secondary criteron. The basic criterion under WP:BIO is coverage in reliable, published secondary sources. Coleman has 20 google news hits in the last month alone, and there's a fair degree of coverage on other sites. Cool3 (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced by this. A quick flick through the links revealed a bunch of non RS, passing references to him and local parochial coverage. It looks like he will be notable; the article can run then. --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few of the more reliable sources, including some mentions that are certainly more than trivial. As the discussion is indicating, this is certainly a borderline case, but there's enough coverage out there in reliable sources to write a workable article, and I think he passes WP:BIO.

"Sligo star Coleman relishing the prospect of cross-channel switch". Irish Independent. October 20, 2008.. That's three paragraphs in the most read paper in Ireland, labeling him "one of the Eircom League's most prodigious young talents".
Thirteen mentions in the Irish Times, most just in passing, but that's still 13 separate mentions in Ireland's newspaper of record over the last two years.
Coverage also extends beyond Ireland to the BBC (a passing mention), the Birmingham Post, Scottish Fitba, and several others. Cool3 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep--I am moderately convinced by the coverage provided. ~~Weak delete~~. Two good points are made--other coverage can establish notability too, but Dweller is correct in saying these references are mostly passing mentions, longer mentions are on blogs. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - League of Ireland may be semi pro, but it is that nation's top level league. Quick search shows that almost all LOI players have articles. He has a professional contract with Everton, and under-21 caps. Technically he might fail WP:Athlete but seems a bit picky. Parslad (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other players have articles doesn't mean that this player should. I have in fact just PRODded about half a dozen LoI players. Giant Snowman 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you ought to have waited for this result of this discussion before PRODding other articles? Parslad (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He may fail WP:ATHLETE, but cool3's news results would seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO, which would override that. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most newspaper hits for this players are trivial, and simply mention his transfer. Giant Snowman 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While most of the hits do discuss his transfer, I don't think that's a problem. If a variety of reliable sources are writing about his transfer, that makes him notable, and as I tried to prove earlier, many of the references are not trivial. Several of them devote a couple of paragraphs to him. Sure, there's nothing here like a twenty page profile in the NY Times magazine, but there's enough to establish notability. Cool3 (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no non-trivial third party references about this fellow. – Pee Jay 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no appearances, no notability; if he is expected to be notable as a footballer, then he should first play some competitive football. --Angelo (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has made 55 appearances for Sligo Rovers. It may not be Serie A, but it is the top level league in Ireland. Parslad (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems notable enough. Irishflowers (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As to general notability, the google news hits are half non-RS and the rest just mention his transfer, the Irish Independent para is general spacefilling football gossip, and the Irish Times mentions are just that – mentions of his name in team sheets and match reports. His transfer is covered, but only to the extent of reporting it happened; the BBC covers transfers in similar detail at much lower levels of English football, e.g. this report of Eastbourne Borough, a semi-pro team playing in the fifth tier, signing a player whose only competitive experience was at even lower levels. Footnote 6 at WP:BIO#Basic criteria says Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. I haven't yet seen coverage of Mr Coleman that goes beyond the trivial, so in my view he fails WP:BIO. And as he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, by never having played in a fully-professional league, I have to go with delete. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet. I mean why not, right?" [41] Jimbo Wales. There's enough content out there in quite reliable sources, Irish Times, Irish Independent, etc. to write a "good neutral biography", and some of the cites do discuss Coleman in reasonable detail. It's one thing to oppose a non-notable topic because the non-notability results in a dearth of usable sources. When, however, there are enough reliable sources to write the article, what's the harm? Cool3 (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not by nature a deleter, but I'm keen on AfDs being decided on the basis of current policy. This particular article is better than most articles on LOI players in that it does contain sources (I added one myself): mostly they run along the lines of XXX is a footballer who plays for YYY F.C. with no sources at all, and if I was that way inclined I'd PROD the lot of them. If the closing admin believes that the player does pass WP:BIO, then fair enough; I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Struway2 summed it up pretty well. Not yet made the grade notability wise only standard web coverage for any typical fairly non-notable person. Pretty poor if a few google hits make someone notable. I typed in a couple of random made-up-on-the-spot names and got over 1200 hits on each, including so-called non-trivial coverage articles - and they are just ordinary people. The sooner people realise that the internet has bucketloads about everyone on the planet and a ghit or twelve doesn't make one notable, the better WP will be as an encyclopedia. Recreate if and when. --ClubOranje^T 11:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not yet played at a fully professional level. Furthermore, WP:N states that media coverage only presumes notability, it doesn't guarantee it. What has this player done to make him notable? And how is his notabliity established in the sources given? The quality of the sources should be the most important criterion here, not the quantity. This article can be recreated if and when he makes his professional debut, but until then he doesn't make the grade. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm new to AfD discussions and am a little confused by an (apparent) lack of consistency. In this recent discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Gardner (curler) the consensus was overwhelming that this curler meets both WP:athlete and WP:N despite the fact that he may only have played in tournaments where prize money was on offer, with no evidence he had actually won any. Seamus Coleman has played competitive football in a top level national league of an important footballing nation and now has a professional contract with one of the largest teams in Europe AND has Under-21 caps AND has significant coverage in Irish newspapers and some from the UK and that's less noteworthy than Chris Gardner?? Many of the players in the LOI are on full time, professional contracts. I understand that it is not a fully professional league but the fact that it is a top level league of a significant country and not the fifth or sixth level of e.g. England or a larger country surely allows a degree of flexibility over the precise definition of WP:Athlete? As for the comments that he fails WP:N I wonder if the reports had been in the largest circulation newspapers of the USA or England would there be doubt over WP:N? Sorry if I'm well wide of the mark here, but it is a little confusing. Parslad (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are inconsistent :-) The result of borderline ones often seem to depend on the assertiveness of interested participants. FWIW, I think the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Gardner (curler) was wrong: the article contains no sources at all and the player had never participated at the highest level, thus IMO failing WP:ATHLETE. That's by the by. As long as WP:ATHLETE specifies playing in a fully-pro league, that's what we have to go by for players of professional team sports. The cut-off point is arbitrary but clear. The flexibility comes in the interpretation of WP:BIO, in deciding whether the coverage has been of sufficient depth to constitute non-trivial coverage. I'd hope that trivial reports in major English or US newspapers – which some of the google news hits were – wouldn't bear any more weight than similar reports in Irish sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Playing 50+ matches in the highest division of Ireland and a well-publicized move to Everton are enough for me. WP:N trumps WP:ATHLETE. Aecis·(away) ^talk 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why, the league isn't fully-pro? Hundreds of thousands of players play in the top flight of national leagues. This is why the criteria and guidelines, such as WP:ATHLETE are in place. Therefore, I say DELETE. --Jimbo^[online] 09:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of thousands is a tad exaggerated! Flexibility is needed here - if a semi pro team was to be promoted into, for example, the Scottish Premier League (entirely possible) do all the players in that league suddenly fail [WP:Athlete]]? Parslad (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Not all players in the Belarusian Premier League and the Cypriot First Division are fully professional, but does that mean that the players of BATE Borisov and Anorthosis Famagusta, who played in this year's UEFA Champions League, are not notable enough for an article? Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE is subordinate to WP:N. This person has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. He therefore meets WP:N, he is notable enough to merit an article. WP:ATHLETE is not the be-all and end-all. Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE due to him not playing at a fully professional level or in a competitive full international. The coverage is about the transfer, not the subject as a player and is not 'substantial coverage'. TerriersFan (talk) 18:54, 26 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, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T.S. Illustrious SCC[edit]

Individual local groups such as this or a boy scout troop fall below our notability threshold. Sgroupace (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's a long standing convention that individual cadet, scout, guide, etc units aren't notable and this doesn't seem to be an exception. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If I may expand upon what Nick is saying (and I think he'll agree with me here), is "what makes this unit stand out from all the other units?". Good article though, just doesn't meet our inclusion criteria unfortunately. From a former Sea Cadet Ryan4314 (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC) ;)[reply]

I thought as we had won the best unit in Essex and London, that stands us apart from others :(

Took ages to write aswell ... PLEASE leave it on :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.55.74 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, simply being the best sea cadet group in the region is not sufficient to pass Wikipedia's notability inclusion guidelines. Also, the information in the article has to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, by being sourced from publications such as regional/national-level newspapers or books. Have you considered adding this information to your traning ship's website instead, or creating a page at one of the numerous free-hosting websites on the internet? -- saberwyn 21:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could userfy it to save all your hard work, although I don't know if that will be allowed as no individual unit will ever meet the notability criteria just on the basis of "being a unit". If you wanted to use the content for a free website you intend to host, then I strongly recommend going back to the article and "copying" all the text and pasting it into a wordpad file on your computer before it's deleted. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:ORG, individual chapters of an organisation are not normally notable. There is nothing that really disinguishes this unit from the others, and the awards from within the organisation are not sufficient to establish this notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to say delete as well. However, to the author, Nick D and I are admins and can retrieve the content for you should you not have it, after it's deleted. Buckshot06(prof) 14:45, 27 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 userfy to the userspace by Juliancolton. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitacon[edit]

An anime convention that has yet to be held. No significant coverage by reliable third-party sources to establish notability. In fact, four of the reference are to other Wikipedia articles and the rest are derived from press releases, the convention's website, and a directory of conventions. Fails WP:ORG and WP:CRYSTAL. The number or types of guest doesn't make a convention notable unless reliable third party sources report on the fact. --Farix (Talk) 12:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Farix (Talk) 12:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy To soon to tell whatever it's notable. The convention can't inherit the notability of its guests. Right now it works like an ad. Google hit for Kitacon key word alone : 875,000 ; Google hit for Kitacon -wikipedia key words : 3,760. I won't mistake by much saying that there is indeed an advertisement effect from being on Wikipedia for this article. If user:alexmunroe is willing to have it in his/her user space then that would be the best solution.--KrebMarkt 12:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and Delete I understand what everyone is saying, I've moved it to my userpage, I'll recreate the article if at some point in the future the convention gains significant notability and has enough third party sources to back it up.--AlexMunroe (Talk) 14:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FOR NOW per WP:CRYSTAL, allow re-creation when/if convention actually occurs. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete for now - Might be notable later, but it isn't currently. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:59, 23 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 Klingon language. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klingonaase[edit]

Trivial dialect of make-believe language. No indication of notability or coverage by third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~to John M. Ford, inventor of the language, or The Final Reflection, the book it was invented for~~. The language is not a dialect of tlhIngan Hol, the more commonly known Klingon language, as it was invented independently, prior to the invention of that language. Klingonaase is considered important by a particular segment of Star Trek fans because it was the first language invented for Klingons, and it has been used in a number of Trek books and a role playing game. There are independent sources, e.g. [42]. There's probably not enough to say about the language to warrant a separate page, but it should be discussed. JulesH (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be invented for the book, but it was also part of a role playing game, so merging there would lose information. I prefer a merge to Klingon language. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Klingon language where people will learn something reading about it. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John M. Ford, not to Klingon language...I think that we should not be merging non-canon Star Trek material into canon material pages, especially when their notability is in question. Cazort (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to John M. Ford per Cazort. This does not belong in the main Klingon language article, as it is a separate non-canon language. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Klingon language - as this is what it is. Whether it is "canon" or not canon is not relevant. We aren't memory alpha. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to Merge to Klingon language. Mgm has a good point about the book's article being the wrong place to discuss a language used in multiple media, and on reflection I don't think the content would fit on Ford's page either, as it would detract from the more important thread on that page of describing the kind of writer and person Ford was. As Whpq points out, it doesn't really matter to us that the language is non-canon. It is a Klingon language, and while the article will need restructuring to cope with both languages, I see no reason why both cannot be discussed on the same page. JulesH (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After some thought, I think this should be kept as a separate article. (1) It doesn't belong in John M. Ford or The Final Reflection because it was used in more media than just the book (per Mgm). (2) While it is a Klingon language, in that it is used by Klingons, it is really unrelated to the topic of the Klingon language article, which is tlhIngan Hol. Refactoring that article to discuss both languages would be a mistake in my opinion. If you really think this article can never grow beyond a stub, then perhaps another article on Klingon languages (currently a dab page) or List of Klingon languages would be appropriate. It would discuss both languages, and the section on tlhIngan Hol would have a ((main)) link to Klingon language. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feastarian[edit]

Neologism, unsourced, and I can find no reliable sources myself, 19 google hits in total. Amalthea 12:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletarian - dead-on-arrival neologism, with POV problems to boot. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and there's nothing to say about this word other than a definition of it. JulesH (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism. andy (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article simply defines Feastarian. WP:NOTDICTIONARY states: "Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible." In this case, I don't think we can expanded the article with additional encyclopedic content. AdjustShift (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prodded it [43] previously and endorse it's deletion as a nn neologism.—Sandahl (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO . Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:19, 25 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 07:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersectarianism[edit]

author is using wikipedia to promote her own protologism. Wikipedia is NOT a Dictionary Wuhwuzdat (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable neologism AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article describes more than the meaning of the word, and (now I've added a ((reflist)) to it) is apparently well-sourced. A word used in the title of a book published by a mainstream publisher in 2003 is hardly a "protologism". Needs cleanup, not deletion. JulesH (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism. There are only 19 ghits for Cybersectarianism and 11 hits, not all of them different, for "cyber sectarianism" once you remove references to Irish politics. It may be a notable word one day, but certainly not at the moment andy (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm finding sources: [44], [45], and another book by one of the same authors already cited: [46]. Here's a news source using the word: [47] Neologism? Yes, but it appears people have picked up this word and started using it. Cazort (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that doesn't answer the policy issues. Very few people are using this term, it's brand new, and it's a dictionary definition. andy (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article as-is is already more than a dictionary definition. Yes, it's a new term, but it's also a very new phenomenon. Cazort (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, assuming the sources listed support the text - It's more than a dictionary definition just as communism is more than one. My only concern would be that the concept isn't notable and the text would border on OR. The focus on whether or not it's a dictionary definition, though, is misguided. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prof. Thornton coined the term as part of a Fulbright Scholar report: [48]. The article appears to meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced article on a term that has at least some acceptance. In my opinion, this article is actually more important because of the neologism; people who encounter the term will likely search for more information, and the goal of a respectable encyclopedia should be to provide that information. – 74 21:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plant plant[edit]

Term coined by person who is apparently also the creator of this article. Dr. Prem Raj Pushpakaran appears to be a qualified bio-technologist but the term "plant plant" has itself not received any coverage in reliable sources. —Magic.Wiki (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. The article seems to be about the term and not about the thing referred to, and the expression has no established currency. There are also WP:CRYSTAL problems here. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism, and as bordering on nonsense as the article does not truly contain any meaningful substance. The term is not even particularly well defined. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neglogism, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Saying that the word "will" mean a certain thing also falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. Hut 8.5 13:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism, as well as a possible vanity page (the term was coined by Dr. Prem Raj Pushpakaran, and the article was created by User:Drpremraj).--Unscented (talk) 14:01, 23 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forestle[edit]

Borderline advertising. WP:RS are lacking, and the sources that are there don't appear to meet the criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three reliable sources in the article more than suggests notability for this site. Clearly not advertising, as no claims are made for product superiority, etc. Not sure why nominator doesn't consider the sources adequate; WebProNews and ArsTechnica are well established web sites that are routinely considered reliable for articles of this type, while the 'netfordownload' site is a syndicated copy of a second story that originated from ArsTechnica ([49]), as is indicated on the page. It should probably be switched to point to the original source, but this doesn't really affect its reliability. JulesH (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This search engine drew attention when google dropped support for it: [50], [51], and that alone seems to make it notable, because that event, in addition to drawing media attention from all over the world (search in other languages and you'll find it!), is inherently interesting/notable. Cazort (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Forestle is referred to by several independent reliable sources that document: the international attention when google dropped from the partnership with Forestle and when Yahoo joined into partnership with Forestle; moreover, the uprising of Forestle and the impact of Forestle and green search sites on environmental issues are discussed widely. The article clearly is not 'borderline advertising', because the article and its references discuss counter-acting perspectives, including in particular the dispute between Forestle and Google. --Subwaynyc (talk)

Keep as seems notable anyway, even if standards should arguably be lower for non-profits. -- samj _in^out 02:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- deleted 21 February on the German Wikipedia: de:Forestle --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I saw the Forestle entry on the German Wikipedia mid February, it was far shorter, less cited, and notability of Forestle was much less clearly presented than its entry on the English Wikipedia shows now. I would also like to remark that the total number of search events on Forestle.org again increased by 50% within the last three weeks! Moreover, it is a search site that does not just sell any product but allows searching the entire web, by everyone, for free, making it of far more general interest than many product web sites that are already considered notable... It might be that for some aspect of the Forestle entry one more reference should still be added (though I do not know where this might be required in the current version) but I see no reason for deletion. --Subwaynyc (talk) 15:33, 27 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. Fram (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Casey Alcantara[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and has no WP:RS included with the exception of a Junior profile. Shadowjams (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable sources available. Winner of the junior tournaments at the Australian Open and Nottinghill International [52]. News articles: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] JulesH (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per JulesH. Starczamora (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JulesH has provided us with enough reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. EagleFan (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add the dang sources to the article, eh? Stifle (talk) 10:14, 25 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) 07:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multi Corporation[edit]

Notability (per wikipedia) not asserted. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This sounds like a large company of the sort you might expect to be notable so I went looking for references in Google and didn't get much. The article checks out but they seem to be privately owned and attract little media coverage. I can't see anything other than primary sources to reference it to. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator Input It is hard to find sources via google, because multi and corporation are frequently used words. Furhtermore,it is hard to find articles due to the many changes in name the corporation and the subgrouping of the company have undergone. If you search for Multi Vastgoed, Multi Development, Multi Development Corporation, Multi Development UK, etc. one finds a lot more. Furthermore, a lot of 3rd source articles are available on www.europe-re.com. The company is active in 16 european countries with 700 employees. It has projects in line and completed all over europe. If this company is not notable, than I do not understand anymore what kind of company is notable. Some internet sites (although a lot in Dutch): [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] --Verena Köster (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for notability are listed in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), a link to which appeared prominently at the top of the article until it was deleted today. You should carefully read all of the maintenance templates in the article and try to address each concern. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The quick device for Google is to use Google News- "Multi Corporation" gouda [71] gives 4 articles, though it needs a knowledge of Dutch to figure out the extent to which they are reliable & not PR. DGG (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I stand corrected. Looking at those four hits again, now more closely, they are spammy or inaccessible. No. 1, [72], is members only. No. 2, [73], does look a lot like a press release disguised as a bit of news; there is no source but I am not assuming good faith (it's real estate ;)). No. 3, [74], leads to the main site; searching that site for Multi corporation gives a few hits but they're all members only, so I can't verify that these are RS. No. 4 again looks like a piece of news, but despite the lack of mention, this smells and tastes like a press release. My apologies for not looking this closely the first time around. Weak keep: I don't think the article needs to mention every individual project--but that's pruning, not to be done here at AfD. DGG's 4 hits (one of which in German) are decent enough to establish notability for the corporation. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Article has been up a week and is still only sourced from the company's own website (www.multi.eu), two press releases (here and here) and an entry in a directory published by a "multi-media publishing, research and consultancy firm" (here)--none of which constitute WP:Reliable sources which means the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additionally, the Verena Köster account appears to be controlled by a Multi Corporation employee which would violate WP:Conflict of interest. Finally, someone made bad faith edits from a Netherlands-based IP address (where both Multi Corporation and Verena Köster are based) in apparent attempt to subvert legitimate concerns about the article. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. The creating editor has already created basically the same article in three different forms, under this spelling and another spelling [75], that were both deleted. I too suspect Verena Köster may have a WP:COI because his only mainspace edits are to the different versions of this company article or inserting references or links to this company in a few other articles. ww2censor (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator Input I yesterday made some contributions to other articles. The article was my first try to contribute something. It would have been very helpful to get constructive feedback. I lay down by this discussen and will see what happens. Anyways, it is very frustrating to see all this happen. -- Verena Köster (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 08:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

If you act like a spammer, people will believe you're a spammer. You continue to add your employer's name to wikipedia (here, here, and here). Why would anyone consider you anything else at this point? If you want to advertise your company, you'll have to find another forum. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 15:59, 24 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 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saas integration[edit]

Does this pretty inscrutable article tell us anything that is not already in the software as a service article? The only reference is no help. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion at the talk page could have made your redirect stick. Or, you could have tried to redirect again, this time with an explanatory edit summary. I don't know why you brought this to afd. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "SaaS integration" is a notable topic (for reference a Gsearch for "SaaS integration" has 44k hits) and the nominator didn't really give a solid reason for deletion. Whether or not this should be merged and redirected with SaaS is a topic for the talk page. Bringing something to AfD is probably not the best choice when another editor doesn't like a summary redirect. That is why we need to talk about these things and reach a consensus. See WP:MERGE for more help. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator Input - Hello - firstly I am impressed with the level of debate over this submission. Yes this is my first complete original submission to Wikipedia but it is not my first time being published. This subject matter is quite relevant and will continue to expand as it becomes more of a standard. Yes there are a great number of references to it on Gsearch and it is the manifestation of many accepted international standards. I expected this page would have the opportunity to be contributed to by the community and in that belief provided what was thought to be the appropriate level of content. I was not expecting that it would be removed.
After the first deletion I did submit an editorial summary reason for the un-delete as suggested. The thinking at the time was perhaps the reviewer did not have a complete grasp of the subject matter. I did not receive any comment or direction from RHaworth. If I have erred in the process please provide with the guidance on the correct process.
Related - the same reviewer RHarworth saw fit to go and remove all of my edits and refernce links on other submissions. One had been there for 6 months if not longer. Only one cited the reason as a pointer to commercial content. This was not the case - that content was a non-vendor discussion I gave to the Information Resource Managers Association a sister organization to the Data Management Association (both internationally recognized communities). The content was hosted on our corporate web site because it was no longer hosted on their web site but was vendor neutral. It is noted that the same editor did not remove other content from these postings that is vendor specific.
Again I thank you for this debate and consideration. I think it appropriate that it be confined to this posting only and not to everything I have submitted to Wikipedia. My credentials and expertise on this subject matter are without question. I request that this page be un-deleted along with my other edits.
Sincerely Markcowan • Talk 01:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your credentials and expertise on this subject matter are irrelevant, even if anyone else could reasonably accept your claims to having them. That's not how Wikipedia works. To the world, you're just a Wikipedia editor with a random name, and there's no practical way to prove to everyone that you are who you claim to be. So we don't. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content. Everything here must be verifiable. If you want to demonstrate expertise, demonstrate it by citing sources that document the subject, from which the content can be verified. One of the parts of being an expert is knowing where to lay hands upon published articles, books, papers, and suchlike that deal with the subject. So show that you can do that. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator Input Uncle G and all - I agree that is about process and contribution not about the contributors expertise. It was mentioned to point out that the content was relevant and informed not superfluous. That being said the content was only up for less than a day - hardly enough time for any other member of the community to contribute. Secondly it did cite an external source that was a non-vendor standards body. I can load it up with references if needed however my intent was to provide initial content so others could participate and provide sources of reference beyond the single source of reference I submitted. Again it was deleted without comment or guidance and escalated to AFD immediately. Further any other edits on other unrelated subjects (which were pointers to external sources) by the contributor were removed by the same editor. So can this be un-AFD'd - I will continue to edit and add sources. Sincerely Markcowan • Talk 03:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An external link to an organization's WWW site is not a source citation. A source is published material against which readers can verify the content in the article. Please read the Five Pillars, which was hyperlinked to by the welcome message that was placed on your talk page before you created this very article. You can add such source citations now, as the AFD discussion continues. Nothing is stopping you. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
  The only things of yours that have been deleted so far, by the way, were your first attempt at an article here and your creation of cloud integration, which were both blank pages with zero prose content whatsoever. Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator Input Hello - Uncle G - it appears we were just slightly out of sync. While you were commenting here I was adding sources and references. I am continuing to look for "non-vendor" and non-commercial references that are open. I did receive notice when first creating the Cloud Integration page that there would be a few days to provide content. It was taken down over a weekend before I could move it to a user page. My focus for the interim is ensuring integrity of this submission. Sincerely Markcowan • Talk 20:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a better approach, but it's not perfect. Wiktionary isn't an acceptable source, for example. Please read User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Tips for editors and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator Input Thanks - the pointers were helpful ... I removed the Wiktionary definition - I wondered if it would be classified as a self reference. Added some additional references and external links. Created two additional content sections. Markcowan • Talk 19:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though in what form is unclear. There are a number of interrelated articles around this topic and I believe there is currently both overlapping content and somewhat confusing interlinking between them. Cloud computing, Software as a service and ofcourse Saas integration. A discussion for the organization of the articles (perhapps expanding into System integration, Digital integration, Service oriented architecture and Enterprise application integration) is however a topic for those Talk pages. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article is hardly comprehensible to someone who is not a specialist on this topic (I'm not even really sure what the topic is), and the 'references' are not really references: it is unclear which statements in the article they support, two of them are blogs, and the other is a general link to an open standards website (and I'm not sure what that means). The author would do well do consider the audience--seeing as I don't understand what's at stake or how the references support the article, I'm inclined to vote delete. I may be a dummy (and if you agree you're in good company), but I'm also a Wikipedia user, and this article should speak to me as well. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, unless it is drastically improved with sources.Weak Keep I *am* a specialist on this topic and the article's not entirely comprehensible to me either, though the subject itself is probably worthy of an article. At very least tag it with article issues. -- samj _in^out 16:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator Input I'm in the process of a rewrite. How long does the extension last? --Mark Cowan (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, changed to weak keep. Interesting subject and you seem a good person to write on it... just keep an eye on WP:COI. -- samj _in^out 02:37, 26 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, no assertion of notability Tone 13:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Blue Boxes[edit]

Newly-formed band, no claim to notability, but someone keeps removing the speedy delete tags. . . Rcawsey (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 - clearly non-notable and no demonstration of notability. Readro (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh look, another non-notable myspace band. I concur with the speedy. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a notable group. --Frehley^Space ^Ace 12:30, 23 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, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xarah[edit]

Contested PROD. Promotional article. Unreferenced. Some assertion of notability but no verifiability. Not easy to Google for notability as others use the same name. Unlikely to meet wp:music. DanielRigal (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just enough to scrape past an A7 however still needs to be deleted as not notable; Fails WP:MUSIC and cites no sources. --DFS454 (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls well short of WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC; appears to have been written by someone with a strong conflict of interest. B.Wind (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio of the description on the subject's Myspace page. --DAJF (talk) 05:02, 24 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 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aya (kitchens)[edit]

Non-notable company, commercial puff-piece produced by WP:SPA. TJRC (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: Created by a WP:SPA editor solely to promote a small local company, the article is nearly an orphan, with most links to it being gratuitous entries in "See also" sections of articles on kitchens. The editor recently moved the article from Aya kitchens to Aya (kitchens) solely to get it onto the AYA disambiguation page for increased exposure. TJRC (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: the article is apparently a re-creation of AyA Kitchens and Baths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was speedily deleted on December 9, 2008: [76]. I am guessing (but only guessing) that the editor creating this article, Nehctik (talk · contribs · logs), is affiliated with Aya. Note that "Nehctik" is "Kitchen" spelled backwards. TJRC (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the company doesn't really seem to meet WP:CORP at this point; I checked the 2008 NKBA awards as mentioned in the article and didn't find the company listed where it was suggested. No outside reporting on the company I could find. For the record, the same editor did create the previously speedied article mentioned in the nom. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete -This company seems to pass the grade of being notable WP:CORP, especially in the area of green building where very few cabinet companies have a third party certified LEED compliant program. Looks like the comment posted above recommending 'delete' because the 2008 NKBA reference could not be found is not valid as the reference is here. Jollygreeng (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it appears to be a regional chapter award, not the national award - the link in the article goes to the national association. I stand by my opinion, though; second place in a regional award doesn't really assert notability, to me. If you have references that indicate the company meets the criteria in WP:CORP, I'd be interested in seeing that. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria as I read it in WP:CORP requires "significant coverage in secondary sources." From what I see under listed 'References' and moreover, listed on their website under 'media' this seems to be the case (I counted 24 articles listed, most from major media outlets). That said, I'm just a newbie... Jollygreeng (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a data point, the regional first place winner, Bamco Custom Woodworking, doesn't have an article, either. For that matter, neither do Andros Kitchen & Bath Designs[77], Peter Salerno[78], or Beyond The Box[79], who were first place finishers at the national level. I'm thinking that this industry award, without something more, doesn't confer notability; especially when it's only regional and only second place. (I did learn that Peter Salerno was a notorious thief and member of the Dinner Set Gang, though.) TJRC (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article that is a recreation of one that was deleted (CSD A7) by a primary editor whose name is "Kitchen" spelled backward. The company fails to reach the bar of WP:CORP as regional U.S. awards won't suffice. B.Wind (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting - very spammy at the moment, but I do see possibilities in the Google News references - [80] Black Kite 09:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The proquest database also has a follow-up interview (80:10, Sep 2008) from FDM magazine which discusses the award and the company's work with Habitat for Humanity. Ottre 10:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 09:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly, and stub. Minor industry awards, listings of new corporations, and the circulation of press releases by wire services aren't enough to confer notability on a business, in my opinion. Nor do offhand mentions in relation to their charitable sponsorships make much of a case. So the Google news search doesn't provide a whole lot to go on. Still, this is a consumer related firm that may some day generate real independent reviews of its products and work in disinterested third party sources. I'd edit out all of the hornblowing, but keep a stub here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony made a good point, even if he deleted it, so I'll repost it and adopt it as my own: 'I'm a bit worried about the "may some day" in this comment - in the past, articles have had to have the notability first, instead of being created first with hopes that the notability would be established one day.' The mere possibility of future notability is insufficient basis for a Wikipedia article. TJRC (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of the searches called it a Japanese company, and used the spelling AyA, which I think the software can handle correctly. (Been a long time since I've looked at an article with a lower case initial letter. That may be obsolete.) If there are two different companies being identified by that string, it's a somewhat more serious issue. That said, I tend to give hard goods businesses that will be used in people's homes the benefit of a doubt, if only because they are likely to be reviewed in reliable sources sometime, even if they ain't yet. This may not be an appropriate case for such leniency. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get that some of the secondary source references, such as FDM Magazine's Sept. 2008 article (pp. 56-7) on the company's environmental initiatives, could be construed as "the circulation of press releases" but the Oct.2006 article in the same magazine is a Feature and discusses Aya as one of the fastest growing companies among the "largest companies in the North American secondary woodworking industry" (FDM Oct.2006 p.33). This seems notable to me. --Jollygreeng (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the article now meets our standards for inclusion, as it has now been cited and referenced. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue isn't sourcing, really; it's notability. All we really have is that the company came in second place on a regional industry award, and had its products discussed in an industry magazine, or got a passing mention in news coverage about related topics. I don't mean to be crusading against this, but if a small privately-held kitchen remodeling company in a Toronto suburb meets the notability requirements, then almost any company does. If that's the new standard, great. TJRC (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's the problem with the current Notability guidelines, what does substantiate notability? As we see with this piece, third party - reliable - verifiable and creditable sources have been found and cited/referenced in the article. However, a case can be made that the company is not notable enough for inclusion. It is a discussion that has been going on for years now, and if the policy does not tighten up on what establishes notability definitively, disagreement will still be waged long after we are gone :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 10:50, 26 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) 07:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew J Gunn[edit]

Nothing indicating fulfillment of WP:BIO. Neither of the movies or books he's made have articles, so they wouldn't, it seem, imply notability. Prod was contested. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no notability as an author as both books were published with so-called vanity presses. Screenplays do appear on imdb, but I don't know enough about how imdb works to pass judgement on them. Readro (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, IMDB is rather un-picky, so generally a useless indicator of notability. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched various places and can't find anything about this person or their works, other than to confirm that they exist. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Note that the books he has published are through Authorhouse and Lulu which are print on demand services. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know for a fact that he has several projects on the run, one of which involves a well known young talent which should be of good interest to you and people in general. I can safely say that his page will have expanded significantly by next year so even if you do delete it now, you'll just be making a new one later on. Comedyinput (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Your personal knowledge isn't a reliable sources, and speculation about the future doesn't justify an article now. -- Whpq (talk) 03:30, 28 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 00:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel Rosenblat[edit]

Contested PROD. I propose this Holocaust victim doesn't pass WP:BIO, unfortunately. Sources exist to Holocaust encyclopaedias etc, but I don't think this classes as a source which gives it notability. Only about 12 ghits. Computerjoe 's talk 08:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We cannot have 6 million + articles on victims of the Holocaust, which is the only reason this person is being claimed as notable for. --Cerejota (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sad, yes. Notable, no. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the article doesn't pass WP:BIO. --Frehley^Space ^Ace 12:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wikipedia is not a memorial -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 25 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 List of schools in Victoria#Independent Schools. MBisanz ^talk 07:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamic schools in Victoria[edit]

List of schools, not an encyclopedic topic and never will be. Failed speedy, but can't see any reason this should be here. Similar list for NSW should also go, rather than being used as a reason for inclusion Dmol (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. (Added clarification due to next users comments} More reasons to delete are listed at "What Wikipedia is not", specifically Wikipedia is not a directory, and "Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages".--Dmol (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - You do not state a policy reason other than your opinion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education makes is clear that "deletion" is not so in order as you claim. Lists are a different animal, subjected to a different criteria than articles, in assessment and AfDs. I am not sure there are enough Islamic schools in Australia to warrant separate lists per province/state, but merge is a different process, hence my weak keep, as I am open to a merger propossal. The information itself is certainly well within the scope of an encyclopedia such as this.--Cerejota (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems pretty straightforward to me (verifiable, and certainly a useful form of classification), though if there are only half a dozen or so such schools in Victoria it might be more appropriate to merge to an australia-wide list.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#DIR - most of these schools are probably small, and there's no particular need to have a list of them. We wouldn't accept a List of government schools in Victoria on the grounds of WP:NOT#DIR despite there being hundreds (thousands?) of them, so I see no reason to keep an even smaller list of schools. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of schools in Victoria#Islamic per the others - I'm surprised that this list exists, but merging to it is clearly the best option here. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list more appropriately belongs in the inclusive article List of schools in Victoria#Independent Schools, perhaps as a further sub-category. WWGB (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of schools in Victoria#Independent Schools, seems a logical place for it to live. StarM 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed opinions, but mostly Weak keep, Strong Merge, and Comment.
* Comment first. AfD appears to me to have become a re-arguing of discussion about the schools in in the list, instead of a discussion about the list itself:

(1) "List of schools, not an encyclopedic topic and never will be."

(2) "Per WP:NOT#DIR - most of these schools are probably small, and there's no particular need to have a list of them."
With greatest respect to you User:Dmol, the bolded text in (1) I would argue is a Crystal Ball comment.
Again with greatest respect to you User:Nick-D, you make a cogent point in in (2) that there is no List of government schools in Victoria. I would argue that this is misapplication of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. There are many uncontroversial denominational school lists such as List of Jewish schools in Toronto, List of Catholic schools in New York, List of schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and other such other lists
* Weak keep - as per User:Cerejota and User:Yeti Hunter.
* Strong merge to List of schools in Victoria#Islamic in List of schools in Victoria and/or other Victorian edu lists

--Shirt58 (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it is appropriate to have more specific lists than the general list of schools, but I am not sure there are enough of them. I think they areall secondary schools, and therefore they could almost certainly each of them be represented by an article. DGG (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of schools in Victoria#Islamic per others. I see no reason why no reason why Islamic schools need their own list, but catholics ones don't, especially when the Catholic schools outnumber Islamic ones substantially. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful list. No objection to a merge but that is for post-AfD discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of schools in Victoria#Independent Schools. I don't see the contents requiring a standalone article. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:47, 23 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 Tone 13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viscultus[edit]

Possible hoax. Google gives no hits for the name of this religion. No evidence of notability, etc. Verbal chat 07:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and close This is a clear CSD A7, and was tagged as so - instead of using hangon - by an anon IP. Then it was PROD, and that was also removed by anon IP. Possibly a hoax, but if not hoax, A7 for sure. Could an admin be bold at take this cruft out of its misery?--Cerejota (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I thought the speedy had been declined. I agree it should be speedied. Author added link to Flying Spaghetti Monster, clearly a hoax. Verbal chat 08:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Article has one reference, which doesn't even mention it. No clear assertion of notability and clearly not notable, even if it is real, which we can't even begin to verify. If you look on the talk page you will see a note from the author in which he admits that there is absolutely nothing to reference it to. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. As a datapoint, 'vis' does not mean 'nature' in Latin; that's 'natura'. 'Vis' means 'life force', or more often, simply 'force, might'; it's the word normally used to refer to military strength, for example. 'Vis cultus' crudely means 'might-worship', and implies (to me) a kind of Nietzschean approach to the will. It also suggests to me that the hoaxer here knows no Latin, and doesn't fully understand how to use a Latin dictionary, either. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clearly a hoax. --Frehley^Space ^Ace 12:40, 23 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 07:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myer stores[edit]

WP:NOTDIR. Punk Boi 8 talk 07:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep Myer is Australia's largest chain of department stores, and when stores are opened or closed they're covered in the business section of major newspapers - all of them are large businesses which employ dozens of people and have large revenues, and they're typically an 'anchor' store at large shopping centres. While few Myer stores are notable in isolation, a list of them seems to meet the relevant guidelines for inclusion. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Nick-D. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR --Dmol (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what bit of WP:NOTDIR is being called in here ? This article appears to be a legitimate list that satisfies one of the things lists here are good for - a common set of article information that is ordered better than a category can. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it were supermarkets I'd vote delete, but Myer and David Jones are kind of unique in the Australian context and, as others have mentioned, their moving into or out of particular shopping centres is often the topic of much RS coverage. Orderinchaos 11:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
much RS coverage? I dispute that the coverage would be advertorial paid for by both the tennent and the centre management its just normal business practise to advertise. Gnan garra 14:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say all of it was positive - in fact I had Greensborough Plaza firmly in mind when writing that. Orderinchaos 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am at a loss to see what is encyclopedic about the list. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto. Unsourced directory of no encyclopaedic value that I can think of. Djanga 11:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The "List" has sources so it's not totally unsourced. However this list does need work on getting it to be more of encyclopedic value. Bidgee (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally. 7 out of about 110 entries are sourced. Djanga 12:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was totally sourced (See my comment). It was in reply to your self saying it's unsourced when really it's partly unsourced. I'm not going to get into an argument over source numbers since again see the last bit of my comment. Bidgee (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. I should have said "mostly unsourced". My bad. Djanga 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if it was only a list of current stores and where to find them, then I'd be doubtful. But this is an attempt to develop a complete list, including defunct stores, and given the importance of Myers in Australia, it's thus more than a (current) directory and can potentially be of interest. - Bilby (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually reading WP:NOT#DIR, this is a good list. In the nomination, WP:NOT#DIR is cited but unread, and mentioned emptily and flagrantly. Please also check WP:LISTS. List is perfectly good article. List of current stores would also be a perfectly good article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, an independent reliable source exists readily - an organisation called BOMA which later became the Property Council of Australia publishes a detailed work every 2 years for each state and territory with details on Australian shopping centres and redevelopments. The only problem is getting hold of it - I have ready access to the WA one, but none of the other states. Orderinchaos 00:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see we do not list individual stores at Macy's. Nor should we. The proper place for this is the company's website, which can do a better job of it. I doubt very much if more than a few of these would be individually notable. DGG (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:NOT#DIR a resource for conducting business the list isnt Myre stores, its a list of Shopping Centres in which Myers are a tennant, Myers is nothing different to Walmart, or other Australian retailers Target, Woolworths, Coles, Big W, Kmart, IGA etc all of which are marque tennents that affect the costs of rent. Maybe a conversion to a template is ok, but really the notable stores should be covered in the prose like WalMart the rest is nothing more than conducting business Gnan garra 14:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The list of stores can simply be found on their official website (through the external link/s on the Myer Wikipedia article.) --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a conspicuous offense against WP:NOTDIR. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per consensus at other deletion discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdale's locations, we should never have lists of stores in articles. Stores are opening and closing all the time, and a list would be impossible to maintain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would the closing admin please realize that store lists have been long since removed from other articles, and a rough consensus among WP:RETAIL members has established that they shouldn't exist (a MOS for store listings was recently speedied). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While other arguments might be viable, maintenance shouldn't be a problem - opening or closing these stores is a pretty big deal, and it should be no harder to maintain than most other lists. It isn't as if there are hundreds of them. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree with your appraisal of the article, I don't think its wise to say what should never or always appear on Wikipedia. Isn't that what IAR is about? Themfromspace (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, Arnzy, and the Hammer. Deor (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant violation of WP:NOT#DIR, as explained by that notorious deletionist DGG. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Djanga 00:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information designed to be used as a directory. Themfromspace (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is a clearly defined list like this an indiscriminate collection of information? Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While WP:NOT#DIR is a quite valid reason for the proposed deletion along with some consensus in prior/related discussions, I must go with the support to retain the entry. There is a decent attempt being made here to develop a complete list which can be factually sourced and cited with some work (as noted by OIC), plus such an article could also act as an enabling reference for articles on notable shopping centres where Myer is a tenant and vica-versa. Further, the comparison by TPH of Myer to Bloomingdales is like comparing chalk and cheese. Myer doesn't operate on their scale, so suggesting this list wouldn't be as hard to maintain let alone have a large enough frequency of changes to make it unmanageable doesn't hold true. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe an actual citation of WP:NOT#DIR would be in order. In actually reading these guidelines, there is nothing to suggest the article is deletable, and much to suggest that it is keepable. --Mr Accountable (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it was intended to be a directory it wouldn't include the closed stores. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelygirl16 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR lacks encyclopedic value. Information about closed stores would make an appropriate section in Myer.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:30, 27 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) 07:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ice sheet demolition[edit]

This article cites several sources. Most of them are either about icebreakers or related to this journal article. However, none of them are about ice sheet demolition. This article represents a synthesis about a topic related to arctic geoengineering. Google shows only hits that are copies of the WP article. There are no hits on news or scholar, and minimal coverage in books, all collections of abstracts about the same article. Fails WP:V. Atmoz (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete an ill-concieved article; the topic doesn't really exist, the text and sources are terrible William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted text I was supplied with by a researcher, Albert Kallio. It needs improvement if it's to stay, so I've asked him to contribute.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arctic geoengineering. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will still be sourceless original research if it is merged. -Atmoz (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge as above, in the absence of substantiative refs etcAndrewjlockley (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC) **The text would need substative refs (to not look essay-like as it does now) regardless of whether it is its own article or part of another (merging is a terrible idea imo btw) Narayanese (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no evidence that this term is used by anyone (e.g. A Google search excluding the word Wikipedia). Therefore a redirect to Arctic geoengineering is unecessary, and merging content into that article would be a bad idea. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with by moveAndrewjlockley (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move as per article talk pageAndrewjlockley (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No move. Wikipedia is not a hosting space for your scientific exercises. I strongly suggest you to follow wikipedia rule, no original research. - 7-bubёn >t 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in any way in this research.Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a piece of original reseacrh aggressively pushed into wikipedia by a "planetary geoenginering" team convened in some discussion/interest group I don't remember exacltly where with this exactly purpose: to write their stuff into wikipedia. They've been creating a bundle of plausibly-looking texts full of references but amounting to blatant OR. I struggled with them a bit, but decided it was not worth hassle for me. I am glad that some other people found common sense and energy to deal with this. - 7-bubёn >t 01:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please evidence with references any OR as alleged.Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note ~~AJL~~ Someone has now moved the article to Sea Ice Manipulation by Ice Chipping. The same arguments apply: it is a neologism with zero notability ([81]). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:54, 25 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) 07:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Chittagong[edit]

The department is non-notable, even among similar departments at other universities inside Bangladesh. The main university article itself is not well developed, and at this moment, there is no need to fork the individual article for the department. There are no reliable sources indicating the notability of the department. Nor has the department made any outstanding achievements to justify its notability. Nominating for deletion per WP:N. Ragib (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that I had twice redirected the article to the Chittagong University page, but the creator of this page insists on having the article on the department. So, I have nominated it for AFD here. --Ragib (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please compare Category:Departments of the University of Cambridge with over 40 articles. As for the university, it was founded in 1967 by a Nobel laureate and has 18000 students. --Mr Accountable (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is commenting on the university (which, BTW, was not founded by Yunus ... :) ). It is the *non-notable Computer Science department* that is up for deletion here. The departments of Cambridge university are quite notable per reliable sources, that is not the case here. --Ragib (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is my opinion that the main page for University of Chittagong is already too long, like most university pages. So, if it comes down to a question of merging vs. not I would favor keeping this page separate. HOWEVER, it looks to me that most of the material on this page is unsourced and non-notable. Is there coverage of the department in news sources? Are there any scholarly articles that specifically talk about the department (as opposed to mentioning things that came out of the department)? I say we gut the article, deleting any non-sourcable and non-notable material. If there is a page left, I would say to keep it...otherwise merge anything remaining into the main article. Cazort (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as of now, I do not see any scholarly article references to the department. The article, as of now, has lists of current students, and faculty, with a few self-published references from the department brochure/booklet. If you remove the list of students and teachers, there is about 1 sentence left (i.e. when the department was established). --Ragib (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to larger units. The standard we have in practice been using for department articles is"famous". Any lesser standard, like the GNG, will depend on accidents of sourcing and availability--if one really wants to keep the GNG one can evade it in the usual way, by a high standard for what counts as "substantial" and dismissing anything in any way connected with the university as not independent. As for Cambridge, 1/ the tag was wrongly applied--most of the articles listed are about famous free-standing institutes and major laboratories, major buildings, and divisions of the university. I see only 9 or 10 that are about departments or what the UK calls "faculties". 2/Of those that are, probably famous is a applicable term to use for most or all of them. 3/I think some of them probably should be merged. 4/the ones that are there tend to depend somewhat upon editor interest--I can think that looking at the university from outside, they've been done irregularly and there are a few more to do. 4/to put it bluntly, some universities are more notable than others, and the departments will tend to vary similarly. 5/this department is in no sense notable, as the overall content & lack of references show. There is not even any indication that the department has ever graduated a phd student. 6/To fill in an article with a complete list of every present and past student is outrageously inappropriate content, and tend to indicate that there isnt much there without it. That so far there have been only 90 of them indicates this all the more strongly. DGG (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no evidence to indicate this department is in any way distinguished that would support a standalone article. Nor does there appear to be any need for a merge -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge . No indication that this university department is notable unto itself. No indication of any awards or other wide recognition. No indication of a history which would help make it notable (in existence for 8 years with an graduating class size of around 30) Alumni/Current Student section is non-encyclopedic. Faculty list fails WP:NOT#DIR. Which leaves us with the opening paragraph which would merge nicely into University of Chittagong.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It look likes a brochure and the online groups that are using in this entry are nothing but Spam. I did not find any other source that may establish its least notability.--NAHID 17:49, 27 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 List of Sony Ericsson models. I think the issue of notability won out in this discussion. Nonetheless, whilst individual articles are clearly deemed inappropriate here, a merge to a list seems to be the balance of the debate. I never know how to enforce these, but I'm going to say that I'd like to see a merge and a related article like List of Sony Ericsson models created with individual articles redirecting there within the next 8 days. I encourage participants in this debate to assist in this task Fritzpoll (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson C903 and related misc. non notable articles[edit]

Does not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a collection of every make, model, design of every phone and this is basically a copy of what one can find elsewhere. Would belong on a main article which would list all models. (please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, article x may or may not be in this AfD due to time constrains on nominating it). Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a online sales site.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Yes, I have gone through and looked at all of these articles before nomination, nothing beyond specs/devl history with no/minimal asserted notability (mostly none, some even on future products) that one can find on any sales site. I'm nominating for deletion of individual articles and creation/retention of a "list of Sony Ericsson products" page.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless taken to a policy level and applied evenly to competition. Right now it's another round of Sony-bashing that erodes credibility of the site. Same thing already happened with Sony cameras: all info was deleted while the competition remains safely hosted at wikipedia. Why, may I wonder? If No Sony Hosted Until They Pay is an official policy, it should be public. Also, please explain why you picked the models in question but omitted Sony Ericsson K810i, Sony Ericsson K800i, Sony Ericsson K850i ? NVO (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I meant by WP:OTHERSTUFF, otherstuff exists and is not a excuse for the keeping of material. I didn't add it because I didn't have time to (do you know how long it takes to go through this many articles?), and this is not biased bashing. WP:NOTE specifically says that a article must be notable, wikipedia is not a Depository, or a collection of indiscriminate material (specifically number 4 on WP:NOTCATALOG). Quote policy: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." and "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)"ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 14:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Haven't looked at all of them, but at least the C903 ([82] [83]) and C905 ([84] [85]) are notable products with plenty of reliable sources available. I assume the rest are as well. JulesH (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...a bunch of statistics about what the phone is like is just a notable as every little thing in a online sales catalogue (sp?). Please demonstrate notability, not verifiability.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated by independent sources having written about the subject. I have listed, for two of these phones, independent reviews of them, thus satisfying the notability criteria. JulesH (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But these sources aren't any better than any review by a sales pitch, they only talk about what the phone is, and what is expected, specifications, nothing notable is asserted. Just because a product exists, doesn't mean we should include it. One can find a review on almost any product online (ex. amazon), but that doesn't mean each and every make, model, etc. of the sony ericsson line deserves it's own article (undue weight) solely because "reviews exist", by that standard, we'd might as well just create an article on every product in every flyer/review with a description. In the end, these sources just prove the item exists, and that its specifications are true, they don't demonstrate anything objectively notable (yes, there is promotional blog-style rant in some of them) for the warrant of these to have their own articles.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 14:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge by group. It should be the default way to handle them, except for the very most important--usually the first of a type. DGG (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I specifically omitted the nomination of C902, the others have no assertion of notability. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a group-article or list. BTW, these accusations of biased nomination (an anti-Sony conspiracy??), I wish contributors here would start assuming a bit more good faith. I don't see the point of an individual article on every piece of Sony equipment ever made, and I'm a Sony buyer going back to the TA-AX3 amplifier I bought in the 1980s. I'm very pleased with my current Sony Ericsson W580, but for the life of me, I don't see why these things need articles in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge by group. Tons of little tiny stub articles...with no assertion of notability in the articles themselves...and the only sources being specifications on the company's website--which are not adequate. Cazort (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Feel free to add any other related stubs w/ no assertion of notability to the list. I don't have the time to go through the entire template of Sony Ericsson phone models checking each one to make sure there is no assertion of notability. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete C903, C502, G705, J210, K200, K300, K310, K510, K530, K810i under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as they're just product specs insofar as they are verifiable. No opinion on C905, G700, G900. WillOakland (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are verifiable indeed, but they aren't notable as individual models. Wikipedia isn't a sales catalogue. Themfromspace (talk) 04:11, 28 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 00:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dreams[edit]

Possible bogus single. Fake Billboard charts. No verification that this ever charted on Billboard see [86]. Insufficient 3rd party sources. Non-notable, fails WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Frehley^Space ^Ace 12:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A good catch. I was ready for a weak keep or redirect to United Streets Dopeboyz of America until I saw those bad cites. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:26, 26 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 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DubCNN.Com presents: The Leak[edit]

Non-notable mixtape. No evidence it charted. Nothing on Billboard. Google returning mostly wikipedia mirrors, blogs and download sites. WP:NALBUMS JamesBurns (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. --Frehley^Space ^Ace 12:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:JANNMT. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 10)[edit]

We haven't even finished season 9 of CSI, and we have detailed writeups for season 10? 100% pure WP:CRYSTAL folks... and assuming this gets deleted, we have a number of "episode" writeups that need to be cleared off as well. Tabercil (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything, including the ep articles Beyond WP:CRYSTAL, this is like someone who can't write fanfic deciding to drag their horrid ideas onto Wikipedia. We're Not the place to impress the CSI executive producers to get a writing job, folks. Nate • (chatter) 06:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 09:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Delete - Only because I don't see anything in CSD for this. Completely unsourced orb gazing. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything per Nate, only because I can't think of anything wittier than what he said. fuzzy510 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely WP:OR, possibly inside fan information. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 24 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 00:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bogish Boy Volume 4[edit]

Non-notable mixtape. No evidence it charted. Nothing on Billboard. Google returning mostly wikipedia mirrors, blogs and download sites. WP:NALBUMS JamesBurns (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability standards. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 25 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, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Got It[edit]

Possible bogus single, similar to Swag On Em'. Fake Billboard charts. No information that this ever charted on Billboard see [87]. Insufficient 3rd party sources. Non-notable, fails WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Searching the Billboard site up no mention of the chart claims. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, there's no evidence that this song exist, much less is notable fuzzy510 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swag On Em'[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Swag On Em'

Possible bogus single. No information that this ever charted on Billboard see [88]. Reference to MTV page doesn't exist. Non-notable, fails WP:NSONGS JamesBurns (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention of notability, as per nom Letsdrinktea (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~Delete A9 non-notable pablo_hablo. 12:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't A9 it as there is a legit artists page. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that and meant to strike it out with my last edit - see page history pablo_hablo. 21:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, there's no evidence that this song exist, much less is notable. fuzzy510 (talk) 21:32, 23 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 00:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rehab (Young Buck album)[edit]

Recreation of previously deleted article under the name The Rehab. Still no sign of notability, insufficient 3rd party sources, WP:CRYSTAL - the album is not released and doesn't appear to be so in the near future WP:NALBUMS JamesBurns (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Letsdrinktea (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with the nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A textbook case of WP:CRYSTAL. fuzzy510 (talk) 21:30, 23 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 07:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Albanians[edit]

This article is wayyyy to broad. Albania is a large place and many notable things occur there. If we had a article for "list of americans", then that article would be astronomically huge. This article provides no additional information about the people that a simple category wouldn't provide. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The same argument could be made for every article listed in Category:Lists of people by nationality and besides, lists are helpful for red links, which a category cannot accomplish. Heck, the subgroup list List of Kosovo Albanians is still here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX. The other lists you mentioned also amount to nothing more than a category. Letsdrinktea (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These lists exists for all kinds of countries, and there's nothing wrong with this one except that it needs work. Incidentally, Ricky, I've just gone and removed some redliners, many of which seemed to me to be peacocky. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't ask me. Redliners just need to have some sort of standard created. I mean, I assume everyone would agree that the Prime Ministers of the Ottoman Empire should be there, with red links. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on principal: that categories would be best suited for these potential bloat-magnets. Not sure what the real gain is of having a place to store redlinks, but that may just be me. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - These list allow for nuanced classifications, such as for professions or reason of notability, that categories simply do not allow. Worries about red-links are fixed by creating stubs for the red-links (one of the purposes of the lists) or in cases were no notability is evident by removal. not by deletion of a complete list. Encyclopedias need to cover the notables from any an all national group, and if it gets bloated, we do WP:SUMMARY. There much better solutions than hitting the delete button. ~~That is, unless one hates Albanians (or people wanting to find information about notables of a given nationality)...~~--Cerejota (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutdan requested I strike so I did.--Cerejota (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding myself go off on a tangent here; I'm continuing this on the talk page. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the long-run, it might be interesting to see how German wikipedia handles this sort of issues: see Category talk:Men and look at the corresponding German category...very interesting to say the least. Cazort (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just like everywhere else. The criterion is, as always, having a Wikipedia article or being obviously qualified for one. The purpose of the redlinks where we do not have articles is to encourage people to write them. We can assume that many people adding one item to this list will be interested and able to add others, and showing the need so prominently actually does work. DGG (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list seems fine to me. Renaming it to something more descriptive, would be nice though. Dream Focus 12:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT for being too broad. Tavix (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with Tavix, the topic is too broad for a usable list to be made out of it. Themfromspace (talk) 04:08, 28 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 Speedied A7. No claim of notability. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond side down[edit]

This article about a nonnotable band was just put up, but makes assertations of notability so it can't be speedied. Still, the band fails the general notability guidelines and WP:BAND. No reliable sources can be found to describe the band in detail on a google search nor on google news, let alone google scholar. There's also a pretty clear conflict of interest with the creator. Themfromspace (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because they say they are notable doesn't mean they are. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Planning to release an EP and touring with other bands that aren't notable isn't enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:00, 23 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 02:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Robitsch[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definately not notable, smells like an ad too. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It smells like the sort promotional autobiography that you would legitimately submit for inclusion in a business directory, which Wikipedia is not. The only thing here that begins to show notability is the award and I don't think that is enough. Referenced only to primary sources and I am not seeing RS coverage in Google, just social networking and blogs. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Yellowweasel (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding it hard to track down that award. According to info I've found, the 2007 winner was Gert-Jan van Breugel http://www.floov.net/index.php?id=en&sec=100&sub=48&pag=1 I can't access the Dyson page, as it insists on using Flash (and I refuse). Perhaps someone else can get in there and check this. Searching for the award and the surname gives me 0 hits. Peridon (talk) 21:45, 23 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. Confirmed hoax. Mgm|^(talk) 13:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Willowbanner[edit]

Declined speedy. Per nominator: "of several reasons. Gavin is not a Viking name (it's a form of the British Celtic Gawain); Gavin Willowbanner has precisely 0 ghits; the internet references do not mention any Gavin at all (the book is uncheckable); Mjöllnir is Thor's hammer not a fish god or such. This is a well-constructed hoax." SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article is clearly crap. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The oddly named bishop in the last paragraph, leaving by kayak, is confirmatory evidence. DGG (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax. Funny, though. J L G 4 1 0 4 03:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nicely done, but still a hoax. Sources don't check out. Acroterion _(talk) 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting, but definitely not real... Pax85 (talk) 05:34, 23 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 02:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quest Crew[edit]

Lacks notability. JaimeAnnaMoore (talk)

Keep The subject of this article is very notable, and should not be deleted. User:WobbieWobz —Preceding undated comment was added on 01:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC). — WobbieWobz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
(Nomination fixed. No !vote from me. ) —BillC ^talk 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because they are in some contest doesn't mean they are notable. This article also is unencylopedic. If they do become notable later, then this article can be remade. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough for me, America's Best Dance Crew is a very popular show, JabbaWockeeZ and all the other crews in Category:America's Best Dance Crew Contestants are well known to many people. Impressive google test too, I see many hits from reputable news sources and magazine articles on these guys. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 03:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the third season of the show. Their entire notability is based off that event. If they won or became known otherwise as independently, then I'd say keep. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per OlEnglish, it is trivial to find reliable sources. I am tagging for rescue. --Cerejota (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- As Cerejota said, sources were easy to find. I added six new sources. I don't know the specific notability standards for dance troupes. A request to our nominator -- if you ever make another nomination for deletion, for non-notability, could you address the specific notability standards for their occupation in detail? How about returning to the nomination and doin so here? Geo Swan (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google test shows a substantial fan base, which would seem to pass WP:ENTERTAINER, which I think is the closest criteria we have for this. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per OlEnglish & Grandmartin11. EagleFan (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Particapating in a contest does not equal notability.--Sloane (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the third season of the show, per Ricky81682. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient notability. Entire existance is based within an event. JamesBurns (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHow can this even be considered for deletion? I saw them on tv and was dying for information and came to wikipedia. There are several Los Angeles Times sources right here in this wikipedia article! Completely notable. It would be frustrating and annoying not to find any information about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.27.182 (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: MarcTI21: some of this stuff I never even knew about Quest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcTI21 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of things that they are notable for. Three of them are So You Think You Can Dance finalists and about half of them auditioned. Lydia Paek has some interesting history, as she was with Boxcuttuhz on the show. She is also a singer. Steve Terada is also a well known martial artist, and if you search his name on youtube you would find a lot of xma videos. They have an big interesting history. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.131.91 (talk • contribs)

KEEP - They are a noticeable and well-liked crew. If you deleted this article, I say delete the Beat Freaks Crew article because it is way messier than this. Someone963852 (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep- They are in the final two of the show, are on of the favorites, stand out, are GREAT, plus 3, yes 3 members have been in the Top 20 of So You Think You Can Dance. Relevant by all means!- TDI19 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just because they are, "noticeable" and "well liked" does NOT make them notable. Do you see every single well liked reality star getting a page? Not exactly. As stated before, if they do win the competition or do something notable outside of the show, then yes, they would be notable. But as for now, no. JaimeAnnaMoore (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian pornography and erotica[edit]

This article is written as a personal essay and offers no real insight to the topic. It should be deleted and recreated by someone else who is interested and able to write the article. Belasted (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the topic is covered in Pornography. So this article shouldn't even be rewritten. I would say some of its content could be added to the porno article, but there's not really anything worth adding. Belasted (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge with Pornography or Erotica. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, and would also suggest a move to Pornography in Russia. The topic seems worthy; the tone, fixable by editing. Much in the current content would turn on whether the Hot Specialty website constitutes a reliable source; but any website that calls itself "A Treasury of Erotic Smut" in its header graphic is too endearing to be unreliable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note also the standalone article Pornography in the Soviet Union and the long list of Pornography by region. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I am, right now. Belasted (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough specilized material to justify an artcle DGG (talk) 09:24, 25 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, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far Away in Australia[edit]

Declined speedy, but appears to fail WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BAND and per nom Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable song, fails WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Wolfe Tones are incredibly notable, being the leading exponents of Irish rebel music. However, the song is question was not written by them. It is a traditional song.--Cerejota (talk) 09:20, 23 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. Merging or redirecting can be done at talk page. MBisanz ^talk 23:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Aarons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Nominating along with Leslie Burke. Pretty much all plot summary, which would be better served at Bridge to Terabithia. Doesn't appear to have much notability outside of the book/film. Would be happy with a redirect, but nominating to get community consensus. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous nomination. Yellowweasel (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous Keep nomination. Ikip (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of this AfD was added to: Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film) and Bridge to Terabithia Ikip (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo notability outside of the film, doesn't need its own article. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Weak Keep More information could be added in context of the characters themselves instead of what they did in some story. Currently, this article amounts to nothing more than fancruft. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't these have been bundled together? Merge, just like the others, for exactly the same reasons as the others. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with ~~the main article~~ Bridge to Terabithia-Binary TSO ^???
Keep characters are central and subject of detailed analysis (this book and film were studied in schools I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless there are sources examining these two characters specifically there's no real reason for them to have their own article. Seeing as there are only two main characters what's worth keeping can easily be merged into the main article without length concerns. If they're going to get their own articles then individual notability outside the books will need to be demonstrated. Take a look at the way Snow Crash handles this, for instance, despite being a longer book with more characters. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a case for merging. No matter what your view on the article, the options are merging and keeping, deletion is out of the question. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that while this might theoretically be the case, with this article there is very little to merge. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merged or not, the solution is then to write more. I don;t think anyone has made a serious try for sources yet. DGG (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is that important to you, then make an effort to source and improve it, otherwise the information should be merged with the novel page, and this page deleted with no re-direct needed.216.211.255.98 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per reasons above--Unionhawk (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the same reasoning I used on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Burke (2nd nomination) = Mgm|^(talk) 13:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per last AfD and reasons above. Consensus is clear in this case. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to main article, which already summarizes the plot. The article pretty much violates WP:NOT#PLOT, doesn't establish notability, doesn't qualify for a WP:SPINOUT, and no-one has volunteered to improve it to remove these major deficiencies, i.e. there doesn't appear to be any good reason to keep this stand-alone article around. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/RedirectThis article mostly just summerizes the plot, as others have said above. Remove the plot summery, and the brief character description that exists already on the Main Bridge to Terabithia page, and you are left with virtually nothing in this article. Are we going to also have articles for Walter Younger, Willy Loman, Charles Foster Kane, and Mitch McDeere? While the books and movies may be notable, that doesn't make the character itself notable, especially since he(and she in regards to Leslie) are not notable in and of itself. WildWikiGuy (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main characters should have articles. Has anyone checked the reviews of the book or the film for sources? In any case this Afd, and we have no policy at all for bringing contested merges and redirects here for a decision. Nor should we, unless we want to do twice the work--which will only result in more superficial conideration--there is already more than can be properly handled. This was an improper nomination, as deletion was not requested I note that there is no requirement that a source for notability be solely or even primarily about a subject, just that it has to be about it in a substantial. DGG (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect Main book article should be more than sufficient to cover this character. There's only three supporting sources anyway.--Sloane (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an interesting character discussion about Aaron's view of Self and how this view evolves, using Jung's mandala for the psychological analysis in Deconstructing the Hero, by Margery Hourihan. There's also an interesting comparison, including a possible influence, between the Jody Baxter character of The Yearling and the character Jesse Aarons in Katherine Paterson, by Alice B. McGinty. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of note, both of those references you mention, are 1 use of the name in 1 paragraph in a 112 page book, and a 264 page book. WildWikiGuy (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above. EagleFan (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Dream Focus 16:13, 27 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. The discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Burke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article consists almost entirely of plot summary, which really just belongs at Bridge to Terabithia. This character appears to have no significance outside of the novel/film to justify having her own separate article. Would be happy with a redirect, but nominating to get community consensus. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then merge it. There's some usable content here, but it's mostly buried under an unnecessary plot recap. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous nomination. Yellowweasel (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous Keep nomination. Ikip (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of this AfD was added to: Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film) and Bridge to Terabithia Ikip (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jesse Aarons was also put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main characters should have articles. Has anyone check the reviews of the book or the film for sources? In any case this Afd, and we have no policy at all for bringing contested merges and redirects here for a decision. Nor should we, unless we want to do twice the work--which will only result in more superficial conideration--there is already more than can be properly handled. This was an improper nomination, as deletion was not requested DGG (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If all of the sources are about the book or film, then this isn't a separate topic from the book or film. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is no requirement that a source for notability be solely or even primarily about a subject, just that it has to be about it in a substantial non-directory way. DGG (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' with rewriting to make it less of fancruft. Letsdrinktea (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: how would people feel about merging and redirecting? TallNapoleon (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep characters are central and subject of detailed analysis (this book and film were studied in schools I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per reasons above. Characters are important to the plot, and deserve an article. if there's nothing but plot summary, then fix it.--Unionhawk (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if there's nothing to say but plot summary or redundant content? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this book is studied in high schools extensively, I would strongly suspect there are crib books and discussion books which do discuss out-of-universe-issues. However, as I pretty well loathed the film, I am not volunteering to go find them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So much so that we need spinout articles on each character? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a main character of a book studied in schools which make the character notable and the issues mentioned by the nominator were fixable with editing. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per the reasons above. Consensus is clear in this case. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge or redirect~~ to main article, which already summarizes the plot. The article pretty much violates WP:NOT#PLOT, doesn't establish notability, doesn't qualify for a WP:SPINOUT, and no-one has volunteered to improve it to remove these major deficiencies, i.e. there doesn't appear to be any good reason to keep this stand-alone article around. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep and discuss a potential merger outside of AfD after article improvement. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles looks fine to me. Dream Focus 17:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article duplicates virtually everything in the main Bridge to Terabithia article, any information that is "extra" over here could easily be added in the Characters sub-section of the BtT article for individual characters. Separate articles for individual characters should be reserved for characters who's existence spans multiple books, movies, or other works. 216.211.255.98 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/RedirectThis article mostly just summerizes the plot, as others have said above. Remove the plot summery, and the brief character description that exists already on the Main Bridge to Terabithia page, and you are left with virtually nothing in this article. Are we going to also have articles for Walter Younger, Willy Loman, Charles Foster Kane, and Mitch McDeere? While the books and movies may be notable, that doesn't make the character itself notable, especially since she(and he in regards to Jesse) are not notable in and of itself. WildWikiGuy (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect Main book article should be more than sufficient to cover this character. There's only two supporting sources anyway.--Sloane (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge and rd per the nom. Nothing here that deserves an independent article. Eusebeus (talk) 21:48, 26 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 02:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Society for Clinical Ophthalmology[edit]

Fairly spammy article about an organization that does not seem notable. Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:CORP. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

It is the journal of the above organization, and does not seem notable either (& fails WP:V). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to WorldCat, the journal (ISSN 1177-5467) started in 2007 and is only held in three libraries. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it's a free open access online journal, it will usually not be a priority for formal cataloging. That's not a usable criterion here. DGG (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a vanity page for subject of aforementioned article. Not notable either, seems ad-like. Letsdrinktea (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the journ al website is ambiguous (at some point is mentions a print ISBN and that one has to register to be able to buy article views, at other points it says that Dover does not produce print at all and that all articles are OA), every article I clicked on is indeed OA and DGG is right that this explains the low library count. (On the other hand, the WP article mentions print again...) The journal is indexed in PubMed, which is critical, but less so than ISI. The journal will have a tough time gettig in there (and get an impact factor), because Opthalmology is not directly a field lacking existing journals (a journal filling an empty niche sometimes gets into ISI in the first year of publication). Articles mention numbers of views and I looked at all articles from issue 1(1) (some actually marked "Free Paper"). The most viewed article has been accessed 906 times, the inaugural editorial 1650 times. Compared to figures from, e.g., BiomedCentral journals, this is very low. In all, I don't think the journal is notable yet and I !vote delete for it. I have no opinion on the society yet. Do we know how many members they have? And what proportion of opthalmologists that is? There must be other societies in this field, why did they found a new one? For the society I abstain for the moment. --Crusio (talk) 09:05, 23 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 02:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEO 2.0[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Bloggers frequently talk about {something} 2.0, but a few mentions does not make the term worthy of an encyclopedia entry. The references cited in this article are either completely off-topic or low impact, meaning that the information is not verifiable. Jehochman ^Talk 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yup, looks like a WP:NEO to me. No significant coverage or attempt by the industry as a whole to pin down what this term may mean. It's vapor until then. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. No coverage in reliable sources (in any substantial way) Bfigura ^(talk) 01:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several credible sources have now been added to this entry's references among them, Matt Cutts and the SE Rountable. Janbellows ^(talk) 09:39, 52 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a minor note on the above-mentioned Cutts reference: it seems the only reference to SEO 2.0 is in a visitor's comment. A comment on a blog entry (yes, I know, Matt's famous, etc. etc.). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:Janbellows has been indef blocked as a sock puppet account. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClintonCimring. This article appears to be pure advertising. See this web page. Jehochman ^Talk 09:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect — It looks like a rather poorly written article, but based on the recently added sources, it deserves a mention in search engine optimization. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per LinguistAtLarge; there is not sufficient content or sources for an article, but quite possibly for a mention in the existing SEO article. --Bonadea (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having waded through the sources, it's obviously not a notable concept. --Bonadea (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This concept has not been mentioned in any reliable sources at all. Search engine optimization is a featured article, not a half-written stub. It does not need to be cluttered with promotional material suggested by a banned sock puppet account. Please use all your critical facilities. Don't compromise on standards. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, this is something of a learning experience for me, so please bear with me :-) Also, my gut reaction is "all SEO is evil spam", so I'm trying to counteract that reaction by not !voting Delete too quickly. It seems to me that Search Engine Roundtable is probably a reliable source - at least they have an article which is sourced. But the term SEO 2.0 is only used in an off-hand manner in the Search Engine Roundtable quote, the linked article is actually about Web 2.0. So like the Matt Cutts reference mentioned above, it's not a reliable source for this concept. --Bonadea (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that is a reliable site. However, a passing mention does not make a term notable. There are lots of things casually referred to as {something} 2.0. Danny Sullivan (technologist) has written a bunch of articles about Search 3.0 and Search 4.0. He's a reliable source, but these fanciful designations are still not notable, because they aren't widely used. Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn from Bees[edit]

Speedy declined. Appears to fail WP:BAND. References provided do not suggest more than trivial coverage. Only one released album. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Google search reveals 3,600,000+ results... Ceranthor 01:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ceranthor 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually less that 6000 google hits

Delete - No news articles, no awards, limited releases - nothing that satisfies the general requirements of WP:BAND - Peripitus (Talk) 01:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only hits I can find are mostly mp3 download sites, lyrics sites, and 1-liners in local papers announcing they will be performing in such-and-such club. Arakunem^Talk 16:07, 23 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 Schecter Guitars . MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schecter Synyster Custom Electric Guitar[edit]

I don't think the composition of one person's guitar would meet anyone's definition of WP:Notability for an article, and given the name of the author I strongly believe the article was written for promotional reasons. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Schecter Guitars. I believe (but am uncertain as Schecter's website is a messy flash travesty that I can't easily figure out how to navigate within) that this is a product that Schecter sells, rather than a one-off guitar made for a single celebrity. As such, it's probably worth describing on its manufacturer's page. I see no evidence that this is notable enough to warrant an individual page. JulesH (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, "custom" means "made specifically to order". —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean like, for example, the Fender Custom Shop Dave Gilmour Stratocaster, a guitar which is available from dealers throughout the world and has a standard list price of $4000 US? Most guitar manufacturers have what they call "custom artist" guitars which are standardized specifications and not produced to order. JulesH (talk) 22:49, 14 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 02:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly JulesH, this guitar is available in many dealerships around the world. The term CUSTOM in this guitar is simply a deriative from another model. There are 2 models that are sold to the public. The "Synyster Custom" is the model that is designed similarly to his actual "Custom" guitar, then there is the "Synyster Standard" which is a more budget effective guitar that has different components. The term custom in his guitar name is not the actual custom that he has made for him, just a replica, as is the standard version. They both are for sale to the public with list prices as well.

SchecterSyn89 (talk) 01:45, 19 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 00:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Schecter Guitars per Jules. Until I see some neutral third-party indication that this particular product is unique (and not sales information), I don't think it's anything more than a bullet point for a list. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:10, 23 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 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demos and More[edit]

unsourced demo Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as "unsourced demo" is not a valid (or at least not well-explained) rationale for deletion. The album consists of demos, yes, but it was released as a physical album (I own it). WP:MUSIC allows for articles about demo albums if adequate sources exist. This was one of the first articles I created back in 2006, so I'll go back through it and look for sources. If no sources turn up, then I think it ought to be merged into the Agent 51 article under the discography section. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:16, 13 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) 01:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find anything of note on Google. Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Back in 2006 referencing standards were lower. I checked and IllaZilla appears to be a user in relative good standing. I'd be happy to give them some time to improve the referencing. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 18 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 00:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Delete, but certainly do not leave in place. Fails WP:V. Next up: the band article itself (Agent 51)? It's been unsourced for almost 2 years. Show me the sources! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:21, 23 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 clear consensus to redirect, including from the original nominator -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Kings PASL-Premier[edit]

Procedural nomination, PROD removed with no explanation given. Original rationale was "There is no indication as to why this team meets the notability criteria for soccer teams. Looking down the list of PASL teams, only three or four even have articles." Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder. – Pee Jay 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original PROD rationale. Giant Snowman 11:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Premier Arena Soccer League and rename redirect to meet MOS to Kansas City Kings (indoor soccer). Nate • (chatter) 07:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this proposal. Seems like a good idea. – Pee Jay 11:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded (or maybe that should be thirded as PeeJay's is probably the seconded). Kansas City Kings PASL-Premier don't meet notability in their own right in my opinion.--ClubOranje^T 07:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thirded. This makes sense. Rlendog (talk) 22:31, 22 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 00:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect & rename & such per above; not sure why this needed to be relisted, common-sensical consensus seems to have been reached (including from the original prod'er, and the nom. only brought it here on procedure). "Redirects are cheap" etc etc. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect etc etc etc ;)--Cerejota (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect etc........ as above. As a member of the taskforce that covers this article, I would have to say that there are few sources, little claim to notability, and a horrid article name. DeMoN2009 22:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect certainly seems to be the way to go, as suggested by Nate above. Any admin types reading this? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:09, 27 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 International Day of Peace#Stamp controversy. Mgm|^(talk) 13:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Chih-yuan (painter)[edit]

Person in question fails WP:ONEVENT for being known for only one event. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HongQiGong. Painter only notable for one minor controversy over a postage stamp. FingersOnRoids (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being known for one event does not mean being non notable under WP:ONEVENT. Substantial third party press coverage. No event to merge to indicates WP:ONEVENT probably not applicable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:46, 19 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 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullabaloo Wolfowitz. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Redirect ~~but only for lack of an obvious rd candidate; event may be notable, painter not clearly so~~ as below. JJL (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Day of Peace#Stamp controversy as that would be the one event that people are searching for. Cool3 (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cool3. "Substantial third party press coverage" relates to the event, not the person. Explicitly fails WP:ONEEVENT. PC78 (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Very clear description. K50 Dude ROCKS! 03:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cool3 and PC78. Notability is to the event, not the person. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cool3 et al.--Cerejota (talk) 09:49, 23 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 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Moosehead[edit]

non notable, poorly sourced, external references do not establish notability and are cursory at best Jonathan Williams (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Some of the sources seem reliable (I've cleaned them up). The article needs some work but it salvagable. Martin^Msgj 15:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for cleaning up the sources; I'm pretty bad at that. I reskipped many of them and I could only see one if any that had any merit towards establishing notability (very short: http://www.uwishunu.com/2008/06/10/agent-moosehead-jazzes-it-up-at-northstar-this-thursday/ ). The rest seem to be offhand mentions in event listings that any band would receive in a local paper. If someone can find a substantive article that establishes notability per Wikipedia:Notability, it would go a long way towards improving the article. Self-published sources like Myspace and CDBaby are ok for addition detail though. --Jonathan Williams (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Notability_(music) --Jonathan Williams (talk) 15:52, 20 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 00:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails our standards for bands; one "source" given is a link to a blog post by the band's bassist! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:47, 24 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 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Early[edit]

Article on an Irish sports broadcaster and journalist who appears to fail WP:BIO, by having no sign of any substantial coverage in a third-party publication. The only reference of any sort is to his employer's website, despite being tagged with ((notability)) for nearly a year. Meanwhile, this stub is becoming a magnet for puerile vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Snappy (talk) 06:38, 14 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) 01:19, 18 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 00:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BIO & WP:V. No independent reliable sources. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain There are now three links to external sources verifying the existence of the show, the fact that Early is on the Guardian podcast and also a discussion on an independent blog of the show with prominent mention of Early.SeamusSweeney (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)SeamusSweeney (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Commenter above is the original author of the article (please remember to disclose when you're closely associated w/ the article in question, per guidelines). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs are not reliable sources. Also, the independent.ie opinion piece does not mention Ken once by name. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Although, if we're talking about associations, I note you are the one on first name terms with Mr. Early, AbsolutDan. You will notice here that Mr. Early is referred to in this show: http://www.newstalk.ie/newstalk/programmes/7/off-the-ball.html - Ken Early's segment is the football hour. In many respects that would make Ken Early the Irish equivalent of Tim Lovejoy, and Mr. Lovejoy has a wikipedia entry. The Republic of Ireland may not be the largest country in the world, but if we ignore the contibution it's citizens have made to broadcasting and football, then we are ignoring long swathes of history. I have no affiliation with either Mr. Early, nor Newstalk.ie. Robeff1 ^(talk) 02:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You assume this based on the fact that I refer to him by his first name above? Let's stick to the topic and the facts here. The link you point to is a primary source. The article is lacking secondary reliable sources that clearly serve as references for the content of the article. Without them, this article fails WP:V, plain and simple. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain I know it sounds like he's unknown, but he's actually known in the Republic of Ireland. That's why I think we should retain it.--86.45.150.82 (talk) 10:21, 27 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 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Snellenburg[edit]

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Very minor career as a model and only bit parts as an actress, with roles like "Boobwatch Girl #4," or brief appearances on TV. Only sources to be found are the trivial, unreliable kind. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 01:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn--minor roles only. JJL (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 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 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ - Though it's stubbish, I would think that being mentioned on IMDB establishes notability. Ceranthor 01:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep - Per my cleanup of the article. Not sure if she's really notable, though. Ceranthor 01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree: anyone can have a page on IMDb as long as they have done something (even the most insignificant of roles/positions) on some film and are willing to register, so having a page there isn't an assertion of notability in and of itself. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the actor is credited with roles in notable productions is what is required to establish notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. See the current helpful discussion at Sonia Darrin Esasus (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ENTERTAINER explicitly requires the subject to have had significant roles in notable productions, which Snellenburg does not appear to have, as I previously stated. The discussion on Darrin is obviously inapplicable here, as an editor has asserted she had significant roles and thus meets notability criteria. I also fail to see any significant coverage from sources that meet WP:RS. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 03:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is very pretty, but she doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER by a long shot. THF (talk) 23:10, 27 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 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living Earth Television[edit]

See; WP:FUTURE. Quote article - "Living Earth Television (LETV) is a Chicago-based nonprofit organization that intends to launch a global satellite channel in 2011." Soulslearn (talk) 10:37, 13 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) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless you think the whole thing is a hoax. As it is the project seems solid enough. Fans of the article should keep an eye on Google News to add much needed references. (note: The satellite is in the future, true. But the organization exists now.) Northwestgnome (talk) 15:21, 18 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 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userify - No reliable sources to support it yet... so per WP:FUTURE delete. Ceranthor 01:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to delete. Userfication can be done without leaving a redirect in the article space so the attribution of all the editors is retained. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any reliable sources writing about this. -- Whpq (talk) 18:45, 25 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. Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abel sanchez[edit]

Non-notable autobiography... A Google search brings up several listings, but not much for a radio personality. News searches reveal nothing other than mere mentions of his name. Appears to fail WP:N, WP:V, as well as WP:AUTO... Adolphus (talk) 21:23, 13 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) 01:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a entry in the spanish version of wikipedia for a person named "Abel Sanchez". Is this just a translation of that? I don't speak spanish so I don't know if they're the same person. FingersOnRoids (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction After putting it through babelfish, it seems they aren't about the same person. Delete per above.FingersOnRoids (talk) 02:56, 19 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 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like it could be a copyvio, and has POV issues. Doesn't establish notability. Ceranthor 01:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very persuading nomination. Delete per nom. K50 Dude ROCKS! 03:06, 23 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 has been expanded and referenced since nomination. (NAC) RMHED. 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Munson[edit]

Delete weatherman for a local tv station not notable. So nn we don't know when or where he was born, or even whether he's still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 13 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) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be something of an Omaha cultural icon, as one might suspect, given a four decade career as a TV and radio broadcaster; notable enough to make the Nebraska Radio Personalities Hall of Fame. Not doing well with reliable sources online (at least sources I can use), but that's not surprising, given his entire career occurred before 1991. Article is a decent stub as-is. BTW, I don't know whether he's alive now, but he was alive as of 2006, and no recent obituary probably means he's alive today. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:32, 18 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 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I basically agree with Baileypalblue. Not much there, but that Nebraska Radio Personalities Hall of Fame along with the long career seem to indicate notability. Id' like to see more there of course, but I'd say leave it as a stub and hope someone can dig up something suitable for an expansion.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regular coverage in Omaha World-Herald (which is searchable via LexisNexis) confirms his status as a local celebrity, and so far I've only gone as far back as 1999 looking for information. (He was scheduled to host an event in June 2008, so in the absence of an obituary I think we can assume he's still alive.) EALacey (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:14, 24 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. I discounted the first comment after the nominator because it focused on the articles current status without discussing potential or making an attempt to find sources. Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SGH-F210[edit]

Non-notable product, only primary sourced, not likely to be expanded. MBisanz ^talk 19:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Product not notable, no external 3rd party sources. LK (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever, go ahead and do what you think is best, you obviously know more than me about these things. Cyberdemon007 (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would appear to have plenty of avaliable sources to allow expansion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 14 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 02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims or signs of notability in article. TJ Spyke 04:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a variety of sources out there, the article just needs to be expanded, with more sources included. No reason to delete it I think... -- Pax85 (talk) 08:03, 18 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 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article of the form "X exists" with a link to the manufacturer's website. Wikipedia is not a catalog or a mirror of manufacturer's catalogs of current non-notable products. If there are multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of such a gadget it might be notable, but there is no evident this gadget is. Edison (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is plenty of evidence in the link I provided above that there are multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of this phone. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 23 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. lack of verifiable sources on topic is convincing. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gzilla[edit]

I don't think this article can demonstrate notability. Gzilla was short-lived; it was renamed "Armadillo" in 1999 and died in 2002. There are no external sources, and Gzilla was not a layout engine as the navbox implies. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:44, 13 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 02:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that mentions the name change. The easy thing would be to rename it. Being short-lived is not a good reason to delete an article After the renaming it lasted 3 years. That's not short in my book anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - A number of mentions in various Linux and Open Source texts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:36, 20 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 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep. Duration not relevant. Tag appropriately. -- samj _in^out 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - evidence is not relevant to whether or not this merits inclusion in Wikipedia as a standalone article: indications of importance are. A name change announcement in itself doesn't demonstrate importance; neither does a "resurrected" page from the grzilla.com site (via archive.org). I've seen no indication of coverage or discussion in independent, reliable sources (not even in Google books) to support it. NOTE: "grzilla" returns 7.5 million Google hits, a quick look on the first pages return nothing from reliable sources concerning computing. B.Wind (talk) 19:54, 27 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 Baruch College. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Behavioral Science[edit]

Asserts significance, but I did not find reliable sources establishing verifiable information and notability. But the headquarters are in Singapore, so maybe I missed something. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Partner of Baruch College's Aventis School of Management which makes it verifiable. Collect (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Being verifiable, is not the same as being notable. Fails WP:ORG. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:46, 22 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 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - and for thoes that believe WP:School applies, it fails that too. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon second consideration, Merge & redir into afore mentioned Baruch College, and let Editors there cleanup and keep of it, what they wish. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:10, 25 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 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smintair[edit]

No encyclopedic relevance whatsoever. This company (if it can be called one) failed to get off the ground so far, and as long as it is not an existing carrier, it does not belong. Physiognome (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - interestingly, there's plenty of media coverage. But it all refers to an airline that will exist in the future. In fact, it appears to have been a hoax or, at best, a puff of smoke from entrepreneur Alexander W. Schoppmann. For instance, smintair.de says the account for that domain has been suspended, and smintair.com resolves to meine-dfu.de-- I don't read German, but I suspect that's not a placeholder site for soon-to-be notable airline. J L G 4 1 0 4 12:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - A lot of people have heard of Smintair because of the headlines it made a couple of years ago. Even if the project has been put on hold, and even if it NEVER gets off the ground, it is still worthy of coverage in Wikipedia, if only because of the discussion in engendered. However, the article needs fleshing out and more references, such as these from the BBC, NY Times, International Herald Tribune ref 1, International Herald Tribune ref 2 CNN, Reuters, Washington Post, etc. Guys, these are very important publications and media sources, not blogs or company sites. Certainly wasn't a hoax either, and I dare say that when the economic climate improves, we'll see the airline back in the news. The current climate has hit the airline industry hard, as you know. But because of the huge coverage that the airline got in all the quality media, I would strongly advise against deletion. Tris2000 (talk) 11:48, 20 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 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references provided in this discussion. That the airline is grounded is not a reason for deletion. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:38, 23 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 Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#Wikipedia campaign. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilead Ini[edit]

Gilead Ini is not notable cojoco (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More information: Gilead Ini is an employee of CAMERA, and was presumed to be one of the editors involved in the Wikilobby campaign. However, there does not appear to be any other reason for his notability. While not reasons for deletion, the article has very little information about Gilead Ini, no information that is not present in other articles, and little information has been added since the article was created in June 2008. I placed a "notability" tag at the head of the article a few days ago, and nothing has happened. cojoco (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll admit it's hard to see how this will develop into anything more than a stub, but that seems to be the case for many otherwise useful biographical pages. In the meantime, I believe he is notable, due not only to his role in CAMERA but also to the media reach he has achieved (the first few are articles by him, but then there are several articles quoting him). J L G 4 1 0 4 11:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering his growing play in media, lest anyone forget his initial splash (or flash or flop) in his first 15 minutes of fame, so to speak. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry guys, but an Arbcom case doesn't make a person notable. The measly 26 ghits he gets are articles written by him, not coverage of him. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he's quoted in major papers, so the media sees him as an authority on something. Is that not sufficient? I'll change my recommendation if someone could explain this. I understand that being quoted as an authority is not the same as have a feature article written about the guy and his exploits, but both seem like indicators of notability. J L G 4 1 0 4 11:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the ghits linked above are articles written by him. Of the few that actually mention him, they are essentially the same article copied in a number of different publications. In addition, being quoted doesn't make something notable per WP:BIO, there must be coverage of him. Being quoted isn't coverage.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn; per BC -- Y not? 20:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — his notability is tenuous at best. This may change in the future, but Wikipedia is about the past and the established present. -- Olve Utne (talk) 20:44, 22 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 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, He doesn't seem especially notable to me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#Wikipedia campaign. He is assocciated to one event and we have coverage that event at the CAMERA article. The information is better developed at the target article so no material to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:57, 25 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. Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Shain[edit]

Article does not meet the Notability Guidelines El Aurens (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Profiled in New York Times. Book from major trade publisher. No real/sensible explanation for nomination. Nomination is only "contribution" from SPA.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:48, 19 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 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 48 gnews hits, including NYT profile, and other profiles in ABA Banking Journal, Zeit Online. Article needs work, but clearly notable PI.John Z (talk) 02:03, 23 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. Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bajwa Group[edit]

Delete this article has been bereft of references since 2004; googling the name one finds numerous hits, but few apparently are this group (other than wiki mirrors): there's a company in Canada, a criminal gang in Pakistan, but nothing like WP:RSes giving significant coverage to this corporate group. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. For all we know this one is about the gang, which would be OK if it wasn't for the fact that none of it is unsourced. In any case, as a company it would fail WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog 19:29, 18 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 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could be notable, but if it is, the article doesn't give diligence to its topic (ie. too short). Ceranthor 01:20, 23 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. Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian cinema[edit]

I can find no evidence that this meets the criteria at WP:BK dougweller (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence of the book. I can't find it on Amazon. I can't find it using Google. - Whpq (talk) 19:55, 19 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 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some searching and the project appears to have issued in this web page rather than a book. It doesn't appear to be notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable/existent book, or non-notable web site. It's virtually a speedy under non-notable webpage, only it says it's a book. --Ged UK (talk) 09:30, 23 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 Marasmusine (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RealmCrafter[edit]

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7, and actually that is probably correct; any assertion of notability is so buried in cruft and advertorial that it does not exactly shine out. However, it's been here a while and a few people have edited it, so there's no rush. Sources are mainly the publisher and forums / press releases / other unreliable stuff. Maybe it's just a bad article on a good subject. Or maybe the speedy tagger was right. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I searched Google for both RealmCrafter and RealmCrafter review. There are a lot of hits, though mostly to Torrents and warez and such. No reviews save for blogs and DevMaster.net, the latter appears itself to be of dubious notability. So I'm leaning towards a delete, though if someone can dig up some reliable sources and seriously rewrite the article, I may change to a weak keep. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:51, 18 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 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any reliable sources either which demonstrate notability, the non-neutral wording can be cleaned up but it indicates this is about free publicity, the external links to umpteen non-notable projects based on RealmCrafter doesn't help either. No prejudice against restoration/recreation if relevant sources appear. Someone another 10:43, 25 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 00:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilesgate Moor[edit]

This is a part of the village of Gilesgate and is a very small, irrelevant place to have an article for since Sherburn Road doesn't have an article which is much bigger than Gilesgtae Moor. Fouldsythekingisbackagain (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from what I have read, places inhabited by people are inherently notable. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Merge to Belmont (parish) per RHaworth below. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gilesgate and Gilesgate Moor were distinct villages in the past, each with history as far as I can make out, though they are now virtually part of the suburbs of Durham. Sherburn Road is a road so that part of the nomination seems to be nonsense. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination by the sockpuppet of a user who apparently first vandalized the article and then went on to harass and threaten various users. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless of the faith of the nominator, as per Jeff G, places where are inherently notable. --Ged UK (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If someone can provide reliable evidence this place is part of the village, then it can be merged. The lack of article for another subject is not a valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not yet complete, so there are invariably articles that have not yet been created. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Belmont (parish). One article is sufficient for an area with just 9000 inhabitants. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Distinct villages, even former distinct villages, are notable, even if they are part of the town today. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gilesgate is less a village than a community of the traditional Durham City. Gilesgate Moor grew up outside the traditional city, with a defined historic boundary, lacking connection to St Giles or its manorial court, and growing up around different industries. Paulleake (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. "Sherburn Road is a road so that part of the nomination seems to be nonsense." It is a village I should know since I live in the area, also Gilesgate Moor is apart of Gilesgate, and it always has been, it's just one part of the village. High Grange Estate is also a part of Gilesgate and has had some history, but that doesn't have a page so therefore they should be merged.Gilagod101 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Comment I suspect Gilagod101 is yet another sockpuppet (see sockpuppet investigation) of blocked user, Fouldsythekingisbackagain. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)~~ Striking this out as Gilagod101 tells me he is not Fouldsythekingisbackagain. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some one has purported to close this AFD, substituting a merge tag. If so, the correct procedure seems not to have been followed, since this page appears to remain open. I have no view on whether the page for this should survive. However the worst that should happen is that the page is merged and thus becomes a redirect. The correct target needs to be determined by those who know the area. The article currently has no AFD tag. Accordingly technical keep, due to breach of procedure. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have put the AfD tag back on the article. That should remain until the discussion is closed when the closing admin will remove it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 24 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, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership level volunteer[edit]

Article isn't much more than a dictionary definition for a non-notable term / neologism. PhilKnight (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would think this could be speedied? Anyway, seems to be a dicdef and no notability indicated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mere dictdef (not, unfortunately, a speedy category). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP --Artene50 (talk) 06:25, 25 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.