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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. After the clean-up work by Caspian blue, Fabrictramp agreed to withdraw the nomination, and as no other participants have called for the deletion, this debate can be considered null and void with no prejudice against any future debates. Hiding T 11:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trace (webtoon)[edit]

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

Webtoon with no claim of meeting WP:Notability or any references. Gsearch for Trace + webtoon -wikipedia isn't coming up with this webtoon. However, there may be language and transcription issues hindering my search, so bringing to AfD instead of speedy or prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable Korean webcomic which won the first prize of a notable competition award. I cleaned up a bit with news sources. --Caspian blue 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the prompt and thorough rescue. Great work! I happily withdraw the nom.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, thanks for the appreciation along with the barnstar :) --Caspian blue 00:54, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dani C.[edit]

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

Probable hoax, prod was removed without explanation or discussion. Unable to find evidence of a Romanian born player for Madureira Esporte Clube. A probable conflict of interest from the article creator should also be noted. King of the North East 22:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is a hoax. Here you can find the Madureira Esporte Clube's roster. --Carioca (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. No evidence that such a person is or has been on the roster of those clubs. Jogurney (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as hoax. GiantSnowman 01:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as probable hoax - there is no Dani C. listed on the player page for the club that the article claims he played for during 2008 [2] Camw (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this guy existed on notability world, wouldn't he have a verifiable last name, rather than just a last initial?--ClubOranje^T 00:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. DeMoN2009 22:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The editor has been vand before on Daniel Ruiz and on Danielson Gomes Monteiro. Matthew_hk tc 02:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons above, Hoax!--Bhockey10 (talk) 08:34, 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 Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile_guide[edit]

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

Obvious vanity page, clearly lacks any sort of notability Mokele (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Should have been A7'ed as a non-notable website (200 hits!). Tagged. §FreeRangeFrog 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet web notability guidelines. Camw (talk) 02:34, 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. Xclamation point 03:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suctum[edit]

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

In the article, there is both a claim to notability and a reference which is a reliable source: Machinery's Handbook 23rd Edition. Unfortunately, Google book searches on Machinery's Handbook, both previous and later editions, don't show any results containing the term "suctum". Online searches on related article terms along with suctum don't turn up any significant hits, although suctum is Latin for "to suck" and gets a lot of hits by itself. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Fails two core content policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Michael Devore (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing related on google of significance, utterly unverifiable. The indicated offline reference is neither here nor there. If this were a notable term, there would be more information out there. As is, the article is either a dicdef of limited importance or a hoax. Cool3 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is an interesting one. Yeah, the book exists, but it does not contain that term (at least Google says it doesn't). One of those terms (non clean-up) is (if I remember my Kanban well) actually inventory control slang. That in conjunction with the inclusion of a name and a specific geo location (NE Ohio) leads me to believe this might be some sort of inside joke. In any case, the term is non-notable. §FreeRangeFrog 00:22, 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. Xclamation point 03:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

412 Commission[edit]

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

Article doesn't establish notability, and I could not find any reliable sources online. ~EdGl (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It seems to be real, but completely fails WP:ORG anyway. I see no ghits that would establish notability beyond "it exists". I'd wager that content is possibly a copyvio too. §FreeRangeFrog 00:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if RS are found, I don't see anything that distinguishes this from any of several dozens of other such missions organizations. Most every Christian denomination seems to have at least one. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jclemens comments above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:30, 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 by User:DragonflySixtyseven - per no duh. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super secret penis[edit]

Super secret penis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. There is no such thing. Fourteen unique Google results. I would suggest speedy but another admin already restored it for some unknown reason. ... discospinster _talk 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Super Secret Delete This does not belong here. Corporate in-jokes are no more relevant to Wikipedia than schoolyard slang. Miami33139 (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: HOAX. None of those ghits relates to the subject of this article (except for the wiki hit). BTW I'm stunned that the phrase "Super secret penis" doesn't get more ghits than that. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Hoax/Vandalism, it seems to me. Per common sense, I see no way that this could be notable or verifiable. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a 4chan joke. §FreeRangeFrog 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Secret Speedy this article is nonsense. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and time for WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 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 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLV-Media Player[edit]

FLV-Media Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable media player. No external sources, so obviously nothing shows notability. Top google hits all refer to some entirely different FLV player with the same name, so kind of unable to ascertain anything unique about this player. Miami33139 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many similar named software is out there, leading to some confusion. This one is not notable. Dream Focus 11:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable software. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, does not seem to have any "notable feature", players like KMPlayer or so probably do the same. Feel free to prove me wrong. 20:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete — Not notable enough but it can still be sourced — Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 19:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find anything on this, no Google, no Google news just trivial mentions here and there. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pole of Cold[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced original research. None of the sources cited use the term, nor can I find any. Article defines Pole of Cold as the places in the Northern and Southern hemispheres where the lowest air temperatures were recorded. Google Scholar shows a few hits, however papers are not often cited, and most are from before 1940. News shows about the same, lots of old articles. As well as [Books]. The term seems to be a pissing contest on where the coldest temperature was recorded, as if that's something to be proud of. Sourced information could possibly be merged into List of weather records. - Atmoz (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Pissing contest or not, the term is quite used. The lowest temperature on Earth is most certainly of note, not less than the Centre of Europe. As for "unreferenced" or "original" this is certainly misjudgement: the article is bare facts, with some references. May be not enough, but the info (names, places, temperatures) is most certainly verifiable. And plenty of refs in google. You searched it in wrong places. It is certainly not "news". See google books instead. - 7-bubёn >t 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There do seem to be a few references to "Pole of Cold" or "Cold Pole" about - such as [3], [4], [5], [6], it does seem not to be a neoligism.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A reasonably well-known term with almost 20,000 ghits. I can see no obvious reason to delete this. Anaxial (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nomination is self-contradictory and fails to establish a reason for removal. AFAIK, age is insufficient justification for deletion (see WP:NTEMP). – 74  23:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a quick search would have shown that this is a well established concept. The article needs work but that's no reason to delete it. andy (talk) 01:05, 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 00:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lackawanna Rapids[edit]

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

Non-sourced non-notable team, no indication of whether or not it actually exists; appears to be possible hoax Mhking (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: appears to be an elaborate hoax. No mention of this team, its competitors, their players, or the parks they supposedly play in anywhere except on their leaguelineup website, which anybody can create. A historic maximum crowd of 17, but they have operated professionally for six years, have player contracts, managers and a Hall of Fame? An all-star game for a league that consists of four teams and seems to have a couple dozen players total? Unlikely. Certainly not notable, even if it is real. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No opinion on deletion but I have added the hoax tag to the article per above comments. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since I couldn't verify this information, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to allow. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, unverifiable, no reliable sources, possible hoax. Camw (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like a Hoax, enough if not, it fails notablility.--Bhockey10 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 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) 21:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of GIS software[edit]

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

Unnotable and primarily indiscriminate "comparison" list of GIS software. Completely unsourced and seems to be nothing more than a huge spam vehicle for GIS software provides to come list their wares than a legitimate, encyclopedic topic. There is already a List of GIS software, and this "comparison" seems highly inappropriate and unnecessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources could be added and this list could be potentially very helpful for someone looking for GIS software. LetsdrinkTea 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a sales catalog and there is already a list of GIS software. How does having two lists help anyone? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With that many things created by them having their own articles, no reason not to have a nice comparison list to help sort through them all. Dream Focus 11:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it seems useful to someone (if not me!) -- samj _in^out 02:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if one of them has to go, trash the other one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, we have so many comparisons, if the article is bad/spammy, just improve it, not delete it! SF007 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Clean up and delete all the non-article spam what has worked its way on to the list. 16x9 (talk) 23:34, 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 deleted as not asserting significance, as WP:SNOW per the debate below, and for the fact that Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Hiding T 22:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gumwrapper Chronicles[edit]

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

Contested prod. Nonnotable comic strip founded only two months ago. The "source" that was added is a link to flicker of potentially copyvio images. There is only one hit on google, which leads to a dead link. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Themfromspace (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete No mention of notability LetsdrinkTea 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Camw (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:NFT. FreplySpang 01:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 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 speedy delete as copyright violation. ... discospinster _talk 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positive affirmations[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a self help guide - I originally PRODded this, as no CSD criteria could be applied, so I am bringing it here. — neuro^(talk) 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The part that bothers me is at the end, where it says "Copyright 2009". Either someone has posted copyrighted material or, just as possibly, thinks that they can get a copyright on their work by tacking on some magic words. Either way, the GFDL rules boil down to nothing on Wikipedia is copyrighted-- we don't put copyrighted material on unless the GFDL authroizes its use, and we can't post our own creation on Wikipedia and then protest if someone copies it. Even this wasn't copyrighted in 2009, it's an essay that doesn't fit the encyclopedic style. Mandsford (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Blatant copyvio of http://www.handcraftedcollectibles.com/affirmations_for_women.htm LetsdrinkTea 20:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete = This article is a copyright violation of http://positivedailyaffirmations.blogspot.com/2009/02/positive-affirmations-articles.html with the paragraph order slightly changed around. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:41, 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. Xclamation point 03:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackguard[edit]

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

Band with no indication of notability under WP:MUSIC PKT(alk) 18:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non notable band, few hits on google LetsdrinkTea 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion is not the answer here. This page's content, in addition to originally being about a completely different topic, has been merged into another article, and the GFDL requires that its history be kept. Note that editors earlier in the article's history have found solutions to this problem that didn't involve an administrator hitting a delete button, and which they had the tools to enact themselves. Follow their examples. Deletion nominations are not the only tools in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PKT(alk) 12:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• When I saw the title I thought it was about some sort of D&D character class. Found it finally, it's at List of prestige classes#Dungeon Master's Guide. Redirect, or if Uncle G is right, disambiguate with one of the pointers to the list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Setting Blackguard to redirect to the link suggested by Sjakkalle makes sense to me. As nominator I would support that alternative. PKT(alk) 16:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of prestige classes#Dungeon Master's Guide. Non-notable band.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:52, 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. Xclamation point 03:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the island in Lost[edit]

History of the island in Lost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mainly speculation / original research. Even if substantiated belongs on the series' fan wiki not here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsubstantiated. Belongs in fan wiki or merged with The Island (Lost) Vasant56 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure fancruft LetsdrinkTea 20:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Lose There may be a couple of points that could be merged into Mythology of Lost#The Island, but most seems to be WP:OR or subjective impressions/speculations. pablo_hablo. 20:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge what little non-OR content there is to Mythology of Lost#The Island and delete the rest. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR essay. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Original research. JamesBurns (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete - per Grandmartin11. Gran² 13:06, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust in Russia[edit]

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

Reason 1. This article is compilation of some parts of other articles ( History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#On_the_eve_of_the_Holocaust, History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#After_World_War_II and History_of_Russia#World_War_II), copied and pasted without significant changes.

2. Splitting description of European-scale event (Holocaust) into many articles by national or subnational borders will be confusing for the reader. DonaldDuck (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Clean It seems significant enough to have its own article, but should be cleaned. Vasant56 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (leaning to redirect). Category:The Holocaust in Russia probably belongs to this DR too. Right now it's a topic without content. Does it justify an article of its own? yes. Does the article separate events on the occupied territories of present-day Russia from the broader take at the occupied Soviet Union - no. This separation appears to be a futile exercise. Many Soviet Jews still lived in the former pale of settlement (present-day Belarus and Ukraine), they perished there or further westward in the camps. The article, incidentally, carefully omits any geographical references apart from Saint Petersburg (irrelevant in this context) and Sobibor (Poland). NVO (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, the article should be renamed into Holocaust in occupied territories of USSR, it will solve the geographical separation problem. Present name of the article resembles "Polish death camps".DonaldDuck (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to History of the Jews in Russia. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Probably retitle & add material as Holocaust in USSR, because that is what it was at the time, and it will meet NVO's objections. This seems a good way to do this; the other sections can now be reduced per WP:Summary style., There is certainly enough literature. More generally, there are numerous book-length discussion of the Holocaust on a coutnry-by country basis, so this is highly appropriate as a way of treating the subject. See Black Book (World War II) which I know by the English translations titled Black Book of Russian Jewry or Black Book of Soviet Jewry DGG (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, this article is notable enough to deserve its own page.Smallman12q (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this article is not notability of the topic but the quality of the article itself. Right now it contains mostly text copypasted from other articles.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep riots that kill dozens are notable; this killed millions clearly is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article's subject matter warrants standalone status. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject matter itself "Holocaust in Russia" is problematic, because German-occupied territory inside present Russian borders was smaller part of total German-occupied territory of USSR. And this "by country" approach is even more absurd, considering that most Holocaust survivors in Europe, survived by fleeing from western parts of USSR (or eastern parts of Poland) to the east, across the borders.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, DonaldDuck has a long history of whitewashing Russia-related articles by removing manifestations of antisemitic activities.--Galassi (talk) 15:45, 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 keep. Xclamation point 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Climatic Research Unit study[edit]

(now called 2008 study on polar warming, BTW William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

2008 Climatic Research Unit study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The article is a summary of news briefs about one science paper that received modest coverage in the popular press. However, WP is not a collection of news reports; WP:NOT#NEWS, nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. While the sources are verifiable, I do not think this topic merits its own article, and should be deleted. At the very least, the scientific information should be merged into Polar climate. Atmoz (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Seems like a reasonably well sourced article on a published study that received media attention, and is therefore notable. Not really seeing how this is a "collection of news reports" or a "collection of indiscriminate information" personally. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep major study, adequately sourced. We do not keep articles on the routine study reports of small research groups, buit this one is non-routine and attracted international attention. DGG (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources show that this study has received a significant amount of attention, and that it is clearly notable. Anaxial (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete my initial impression was keep, but I was not able to find any recent articles that reflect back on / use this report - maybe it was only a flash in the pan and more news than notable (or maybe I am a poor researcher or maybe not enough time has passed for it to be appearing in other peer reviewed journal articles.) If more current sources are found then its impact / notability is proven over time and I will switch to keep.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete - this is utterly weird. Why would wiki have a whole article about one not particularly notable scientific paper? It's also badly mistitled: this wasn't a "CRU study" in the sense of the CRU organising some research team, or a major observational programme, or something: it's the CRU study because Gillett happens to be at CRU. Whoever wrote this thing (and those who voted keep) just doesn't understand what is going on The study was led by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and was assisted by scientists from is wrong. It was work lead by NG, in collaboration with other scientists. Just like normal. There are countless scientific papers that are more notable and more interesting. We don't, and we shouldn't, have articles on them William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is referenced and cites reliable sources (including a peer-reviewed journal), and judging by the number of citations appears to be quite notable as well. Considering the study was published near the end of 2008 and we are now at the beginning of 2009, I believe it's a little premature to determine that "nothing of interest" arose from it. Finally, if there are factual inaccuracies in the article, the proper way to fix them is with the "Edit" tab, not an AfD comment. – 74  23:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The peer-reviewed journal paper is the topic of the WP article. Therefore, it cannot also be a source. Having an encyclopedia article about one journal article is just silly no matter how many main-street newspapers pick it up. -Atmoz (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A peer-reviewed journal is a de facto reliable source; I can think of no better source regarding the contents of an article than said article. Please provide a link to a policy (or guideline) stating that a peer-reviewed journal (in good standing) is not a reliable source. The peer-review process indicates community verification and at least limited acceptance of the contents of the article. – 74  00:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per DGG - Tphi (talk) 19:08, 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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jacob Enriquez[edit]

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

Non-notable auto-biographical article; the subject appears to be one and the same as the author PaulJacob (talk · contribs). The subject of the article is a 16-year-old church choir singer and there seems to be no indication as to why he would qualify to pass WP:N. I was unable to dig up any reliable sources to indicate any notability although a Google search did turn up several YouTube clips of the subject performing with his church choir and a handful of self-created online profiles on free web hosts. Please also note that, although the Google search returned over 600 hits, the majority of them are about other people with the same name. The article may have qualified for WP:CSD#A7 but I did not tag it for speedy deletion due to a sentence that states that "He won the Original Pop Music (OPM) Vocal Solo Competition" at the age of 11. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A7. The full sentence mentioned above is "He won the Original Pop Music (OPM) Vocal Solo Competition held at the Trinity Christian Academy, Bacolod City, Philippines". Winning a school music competition does not make you notable. Cool3 (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure vanity piece. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 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 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Lyndon[edit]

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

Non-notable author of self-published online poems and stories. No verifiable information to make an encyclopedia article. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable writer. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of independent third party sources to establish WP:N --Artene50 (talk) 06:14, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongiovi[edit]

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

Nominated for speedy deletion as A7; author removed db tag. Non-notable family name; likely autobiographical. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete -- the removal of the DB tag by the author constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted, and the author has been warned. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy all the way, but may I remind you that Wikipedia:Vandalism exempts newbies removing templates from allegations of vandalism: "Note that this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AfD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue.". NVO (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree with the speedy deletion tag, except CSD A7 covers real persons and organizations (which from how I understand the policy, doesn't include family names - and if someone strongly disagrees please feel free to replace the CSD tag). You could argue lack of context but that might be a stretch as the article (at least in my opinion) is self-explanatory, despite the NN subject and complete lack of sources. Strong Delete. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Camw (talk) 03:51, 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. AfD is a discussion, not a vote. The balance of discussion indicates that the article fails to meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE given the quality of the sources. Those favouring retention seemed to do so on the basis of future notability (e.g. will soon join a pro team), google hits (e.g. ranks second in Google), or performance in his football matches (e.g. number of goals scored over his career). These arguments have little or no rounding in policy, and so the consensus of this discussion favours deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Main[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

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

Non-professional football (soccer) player who has never played above the sixth level of English football, at which there are no fully professional teams - thereby fails WP:ATHLETE. Previously deleted via AfD last May. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He fell short of the required criteria back then, and he falls short now. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league, and there's nothing to suggest he's notable in any other field. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and previous debate. GiantSnowman 16:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.I oppose deletion. Allthough Jon Main hasn't played in a professional league, he has scored almost twice as much as the no 2 top scorer in the league. And Jon Main is also better known and more popular than most of the player that played in Conference National and even in the Coca-Cola League, even by a person that lives outside of the United Kingdom and Europe (myself as example). Main has also broken and won many records and even had a fanclub page in Facebook and Myspace, I think the reason is quite enough and should make Jon Main a player of some importance. Do not discriminate player that played in an amatuer league, some of them have credential to grow and is even better than the professional football player. And I hope someone who wanted to propose this article for deletion again in future can give a very concrete reason for his/her doings. I simply cant understand for the fact that this article is being nominated for deletion only for a very simple and a short reason : Never played professional football. Is this is kinda of joke ? — Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 17:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wimbledon will be promoted this season to the Conference South. His goal scoring records are notable enough to keep his page anyway, I was delighted to find him here because I wanted to find out more about him. JAStewart (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AFC Wimbledon is a semi-pro football club and currently has unprecedented lead in Conference South and surely will be promoted to Conference National next season. Most of the clubs in the Conference National is registered as fully professional footy club, and AFC Wimbledon will surely do that when they gets promoted. as per citations, & references, it can easily be improved, many articles on Main on the web 194.116.199.218 (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. no use for you to delete it, ppl will recreate this article though. ppl will still recreate the article on him despite being deleted hundredth of times, because main plays an important figure among football fan and ppl in england. you should try to improve the article, so that ppl can know more about him, deleting the article is not the answer. Samanthaness (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has unbelievable footy records & has also been linked to many league 1 & 2 clubs. Will be called to join a pro team very soon. Article can be easily upgraded --118.107.192.22 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There are plenty of sources about him. [7] albeit from local papers. The key issue is whether that is enough given the nature of the league. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be plenty of third-party sources as demonstrated by the link above. This means he passes WP:N. If a subject passes the general notability guidelines, there is no need for the subject to pass the specific athlete/corp/music/etc. guidelines as well. A high school player may be notable if he or she has significant coverage in reliable third party sources; the fact that they do not meet WP:ATHLETE as well does NOT take away from the notability met as per WP:N. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to his impreesive scoring record. I actually searched Wikipedia for this page to learn more about him Arnemann (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Main is scoring at a record pace and is the driving force for a rather unprecedented run by AFC Wimbledon, given their history. Further, the team is far more notable and famous than their league position suggests given the history behind their creation and their incredible success. Preceding unsigned comment by User:76.213.235.148 at 13:06, 25 February 2009
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Player fails WP:Athlete and from what I can see, also fails WP:Notability, the sources noted above on Google news are almost entirely match reports where the player is mentioned as having performed some action in the game (Main is expected to be fit for the game, Main scored a goal in this match - and so on), I do not think there are enough articles on him that constitute "Significant coverage" which as per WP:Notability means "that sources address the subject directly in detail". He may (or may not) be in a professional team soon and AFC Wimbledon may (or may not) be promoted this season but Wikipedia is definitely not a crystal ball. Camw (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — References, citations & links has been added to the article. — Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 18:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - most of the keep !votes seem to be on the basis of ILIKEIT (he has scored lots of goals and/or should be treated differently because he plays for AFC Wimbledon) or CRYSTAL (he will probably be signed by a professional team soon)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --- per good reasoning by Theseeker4 60.48.246.75 (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Camw. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, having never played in a fully-pro league. (Note for those less well-acquainted with the levels of English football: even if crystal-balling were acceptable, and even if AFC Wimbledon are promoted this season, the league they will be promoted to is still not a fully-pro league.) Not enough non-trivial coverage to pass WP:BIO. Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Disagree. As far as I am concerned, the article already passes WP:N, the subject passes the general notability guidelines, so there is no need for it to pass WP:ATHLETE and so on. The article got loads of references and links, besides the daily page view for the article is also quite high compared to other new entrants. The article passes the MAIN rules for article inclusion in Wikipedia so there is no need for deletion. The subject also have some importance to show. He holds many league records and is the current topscorer and so on. Main got "The People's Support". He is so like a champ to them. 118.107.192.22 (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article as written meets GNG (sourcing looks fine, articles are about the player though often short). WP:ATHLETE defers to GNG. Hobit (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, has never played in a fully-professional league thus failing WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 09:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why keep mentioning WP:ATHLETE ?, the subject already passes WP:N basic criteria for inclusion. This sentence is written under the Additional Criteria section, pls read it carefully "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Jon Main may fail WP:ATHLETE, but given that WP:N exceeds WP:ATHLETE, he already passes the criteria for inclusion. Main also passes WP:BIO though 60.48.246.75 (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that failing WP:ATHLETE isn't relevant if the subject passes the basic notability criteria, though there's no real need to write it in big letters. However, the references supplied say only that the subject is a part-time footballer who scored a lot of goals for his previous club playing in a regional league at the seventh level of English football, scored a lot of goals this season for his current club playing in a regional league at the sixth level of English football, and quite fancies playing at a higher level. What the closing admin will have to consider is whether that constitutes significant enough non-trivial coverage to pass WP:N / WP:BIO. Similar quality of referencing could be found for hundreds of other part-time players who have never played professional sport, which reflects interestingly on the English media's obsessive reporting on football right down to very low levels. Local papers have always written about local football in detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (EC)Response to IP above Because every kid who has ever kicked a ball has stuff written about them because football is one of those things people can't get enough of. Without setting some criteria Wikipedia will simply become a big database of non notables who happen to walk the earth - including my 6 year old son who has had both his photo and short article in the paper already, having scored over 30 goals in the 7th grade. When that day comes, Wikipedia will die and be replaced by something a bit more selective about inclusion, because entering "Craig Williams" (completely random name) will produce hundreds of wiki articles (based on the fact this gave me 195000 Ghits just now) and you will never find the actual notable one you wish to look up unless you know enough about him to not need to look him up. At the end of the day you think this lad is notable because he had his name in the paper, but he is merely a small fish that looks like a big fish because he is the biggest fish in his little pond. The small fish is not truly notable unless he makes it big in the big pond--ClubOranje^T 11:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per me. I believe he is likely to make it one day, but article should not actually exist until that day comes per WP:CRYSTAL. Unlike some, I don't believe a couple of lines in a newspaper is notability, it is merely sports journalists giving ordinary folk their 15 minutes of fame scrapping to make a living, --ClubOranje^T 11:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While that's a reasonable opinion, I don't see how it jives with either WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. From the top of WP:ATHLETE "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Hobit (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no professional appearances, no notability. We absolutely need to put a line between notability and non-notability for footballers based on their achievements, and playing in the Conference South (English 6th tier) cannot be enough, including for the league topscorer. Period. --Angelo (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've asked this of others, but I'll ask one more time and a bit more carefully. In your opinion does the subject meet WP:N? WP:BIO? As there are plenty of sources about this subject in the article, it sems that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." is fairly trivially met. It seems that you are arguing that these guidelines are wrong here (and I think that's a general sense of many with respect to athletes) not that the guidelines aren't met. Sorry if I'm putting (mistaken) words in your mouth. Hobit (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it says it is presumed, not it is guaranteed. Presumption is not enough, as is being in the local news. Amateur leagues such as Conference South naturally receive local coverage in cities, towns and neighbourhoods where the league teams play. I don't live in Italy anymore, but if you go to Sicily and buy the Monday edition of the Giornale di Sicilia, you will find citations for all amateur leagues from Eccellenza to Seconda Categoria, that is the second-bottom league in the whole Italian football panorama. --Angelo (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough answer. I strongly disagree with that reading of WP:N and it's application here, but thanks for explaining. If that opinion in fact has consensous it should be stated so in WP:ATHLETE. That's a huge exception to our inclusion guidelines and isn't hinted at in them. Hobit (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Angelo and would add that the main aim here is to build an encyclopaedia. The question should be asked for each and every entry: has this subject done or achieved something of "encyclopaedic note". Truly notable subjects are worthy of inclusion regardless of whether they have coverage; A player that represented Uruguay as they won the first World Cup is significantly more notable than one who today plays 6 levels down from the top, yet there is probably significantly less coverage of the Uruguayan (thanks to the internet mostly). Yes, notability gets coverage, but not all coverage is notability. Lads playing in your local league are not as notable as lads playing in my local league....from my perspective.--ClubOranje^T 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but I don't know of a policy or guideline that would support that other than (obviously) WP:IAR. If that's what you all want (in the sports area) I don't have much of an objection. But it should be written down someplace. WP:ATHLETE specifically defers to published sources. If that's not where conscious really is, than it should be changed. But for now, I think this should be kept as it meets all relevant guidelines and a small number of editors shouldn't be overriding that because they think the guidelines are wrong (rather than that this is a special case which is reasonable for a small number of editors to claim). Hobit (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This I believe has partially been done with WP:FOOTYN, but is still unofficial guideline and not integrated with WP:ATHLETE. It is something that probably should be given a little nudge by somebody.--ClubOranje^T 08:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on the Delete Vote — The Delete voters particularly mentioning about something that may be true. But it is not even mentioned in WP:N & WP:ATHLETE. There is no concrete regulations that supports their state. There is nothing that the DELETE voters have mentioned is in the regulation itself, it is kind of BIAS to delete this article by neglecting the rules. The FACT is, the article already passes WP:N given the current rules for WP:N, the decision must be made according to the rules. How can we say that the references given is not reliable & how far the reliability is, can someone give me a concrete measurement ? Is there any very concrete reason to say that the references is not reliable ? What is the meaning of the "no notability" words mentioned by Angelo in his vote ? There are thousands of so called pro league ppl bio is in Wikipedia itself that only have a sentence or two in the article, some has remained in Wikipedia for three to four years with only one edits or two. Why is that kind of article is still in Wikipedia if people won't search for it ?? Their daily page hits is only 1 or 2 per day, is it worth it to be in Wikipedia, only for a simple reason, ohh he plays in the pro-league and he passes WP:N & so on. Wikipedia SHOULD be a place where there is articles that people will look for, like "Jon Main", not only because it passes WP:N and other guidelines. I agree that the guidelines is important to show that the article is reliable but the people's wants and demand should stand in the first place. I do agree to some of the arguments, I know that this article means nothing to "you", or maybe "us". But do you know the value and the importance of this article to the people out there? Everyday people were searching and searching for Jon Main article, but they couldn't find one because articles & news about him is being deleted over and over again. It is some kind of "UNDERESTIMATION" to the non-league footballers & amateurs, whatever they do, it is not even recognized by the media, even if he/she has won many honours and broken so many records. Can we all, as Wikipedians Keep this article as a show of thankfulness to him, we didn't give him any money or anything, but we can give him a place in "Wikipedia" that he can be proud of. Not only for him, but also to the non-league footballers in all around the world, to the people that lives in Greater London and also to the AFC Wimbledon and Wimbledon FC supporters. I know that Jon Main is a small fish that lives in a small pond (that's what ClubOranje mentioned), but to me Jon Main is a small fish that is not given enough water and food, only because the fish is small and ppl look at it as useless. — Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On one hand you talk about sticking to the official policy and then provide some reasons to keep the article that don't have any place in any wikipedia policy (because we should be thankful for the players actions, because others aren't recognised by the media and so on). I don't agree that the article passes the test for notability ("Significant coverage" whereby "that sources address the subject directly in detail"), but there is no set measurement for this test and that is why we are having this discussion. Camw (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (response to Arteyu) Are you really saying we should keep a Wikipedia artcle because people are tying to look him up and can't find anything on him because "articles & news about him is being deleted over and over again"? Surely that is counter to the multitude of non trivial reliable sources claimed above. Additionally, a Wikipedia article should not exist as "a show of thankfulness to him". If you wan't to show someone thanks, buy them a gift or send them a card. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.--ClubOranje^T 00:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG STRONG KEEP JON MAIN IS A GREAT PLAYER THOUGH THAT HE PLAYS FOR AFC WIMBLEDON, GO GO GO JONNY !!! GO GO DONS !!! YOU'RE THE BEST !!! JONNY IS EVEN BETTER THAN KAKA AND CRISTANO !!!!
• Keep Pls give the article some lease of life. Main really deserved it. 60.50.14.179 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• More details on why it should be kept Given is the page view for this article Jon Main Wikipedia Page View

The page view for Jon Main is quite high for a new article. It is second in Google if you search for "Jon Main". Just giving out some stats 118.107.192.22 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The page view is quite high because there is an active AfD debate on it that has been canvassed. Just putting the stats in perspective.--ClubOranje^T 23:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is about 50 hits per day before AfD, higher than most League 2 and League one club player 118.100.160.178 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for closing admin and all guys around: please keep in mind that this is not an election, and I can't avoid noticing almost all keep !votes are coming from AFC Wimbledon fans (mostly anonymous user with no significant edit history in the project). Wikipedia is based on consensus, not voterigging, and I can't understand people citing reasons to keep this article like "he is a great player, even better than Kaka" (never watched him playing, but I don't really think so), "he really deserved it" (anyone might deserve it, actually), "he is the topscorer" (so what?), "he will join a pro team very soon" (who knows?!?) or "is second in Google" (unfortunately for you, I am a IT expert, with a major in web engines and IR, and I can assure you there is absolutely no connection between being "second in Google" and the number of views). My feeling is that nobody would have argued about this case if the subject were going to play for another team, such as for instance Basingstoke Town F.C., that coincidentally plays in the same league of AFC Wimbledon. --Angelo (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 09:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or REDIRECT the article does not seem to pass the criteria for deletion, so i suggest it to be kept. to delete it is a cruel decision as some users have tried their hard to retain and mantain it by searching for reliable resources and by expanding the article. i think it should be redirected to AFC Wimbledon rather than to be deleted. closure admin, i hope that you can read the Keep vote thoroughly and make your decision wisely. we have been trying our best to retain the article, i hope that your decision is to redirect or to keep it. it would be very sad for us and to all jon main fan if it is still deleted Samanthaness (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect 118.100.160.178 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some writer worked hard on that article. They may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Pls show some kindness, Wikipedia is the only place that we can find thorough information about Jon Main, we need it 118.100.160.178 (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Wikipedia is the "only place that we can find thorough information about Jon Main" then that merely reinforces that he is not really notable..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 40 goals in 41 games; leading league in scoring, well written and researched article. WP:CS would suggest that this type of article should be kept. Nfitz (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having scored lots of goals is not a policy-based reason for keeping. If a player had scored 120 goals in 40 games in the Isle of Wight Saturday Football League, would that be a reason to keep.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me and my friends once played a kicakbout in which we scored over 50 goals; should we get our own articles as well then? GiantSnowman 13:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article popularity should also be counted Emmanthe (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems that there isn't enough evidence to delete this article. Article has been edited in proper and passes WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:CS & GNG. Emmanthe (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The player fails the guidelines at WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN, set up to deal with exactly this type of situation. He may be the leagues top scorer this season, but so has a player every season and that doesn't infer notably. It is very questionable whether he passes WP:BIO and WP:N as there is a lack of reliable secondary sources for Jon listed in the article. The references provided either do not have him as the subject 1 or are unreliable 2. Arguments such as page view statistics, he deserves it and users trying hard are redundant as per Wikipedia policy. The discussion is to determine whether he is notable for this encyclopedia, and the moment, he is not. If he passes the notablity stage in the future, the article can be recreated in it's current state, saving all the current work that has gone into it. --Eastlygod (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Darrin[edit]

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

A disputed PROD. This actress had one small but memorable role in The Big Sleep but she is not credited in its cast list, nor, according to IMDB, is she credited for five of the seven roles listed in this article. There is very little information about the actress and I was unable to find anything about her personal life on Google. I take no position here (and have waffled about the article through proposed speedy/PROD stages) but bring it to the community for a decision. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In the absence of verification from RS, "best remembered" for a role that's minor and uncredited seems to me persuasive for deletion. Happy to revise if further verification of notability is provided. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After poking around, I can't seem to find any reliable sources about her, and I don't think having an uncredited role in a movie makes you notable. Cool3 (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC). Changed to keep, appears to pass WP:ENTERTAINER as per Big Bird. Cool3 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes notability threshold of WP:ENTERTAINER which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". Her roles in Bury Me Dead and Federal Agent at Large, I believe, qualify as significant and the two films qualify as notable. Granted, the article would be much better off with a few solid references but those are likely to take somewhat longer to find. Since this subject lived in an era without internet, the vast majority of sources on her are likely to be printed in books, newspapers and magazines rather than being posted on the internet. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of the two films cited have a Wikipedia article, throwing their notability into question. As for references in older publications, I've run her through some newspaper databases that go back to the 40s and 50s and I don't find anything. Cool3 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Having a Wikipedia article is not a threshold of notability for films, rather it is Wikipedia:Notability (films). The films qualify under that criteria. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the assessment of films for notability; could I trouble you to elucidate as to how the two films, Bury Me Dead and Federal Agent at Large, qualify as notable? Accounting4Taste:talk 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bury Me Dead meets criterion 1 by being widely distributed and receiving full length reviews from two or more nationally known critics; see reviews by Jeffrey Anderson and Gregory Meshman. Federal Agent at Large meets criterion 2.1 by being featured in two articles/publications that were published more than five years after the film's initial release; see here for titles and dates of those publications. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm sold. Cool3 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your trouble; both those resources were previously unknown to me but seem as though they would be valuable in a number of situations. I agree that Bury Me Dead is notable for the reason you've given -- does it matter that Sonia Darrin is not mentioned in either review? (I'm not trying to be unhelpful here -- as the article's talk page says, I have a clear memory of her appearance in The Big Sleep and consider that evidence of notability -- in fact, she played the role better than Joan Collins did -- I'm just trying to understand the criteria that apply. This situation seems like it's teetering on the edge, and I want to know what evidence can legitimately be brought to bear in similar situations in the future.) Again, I do thank you for your trouble; if you can't be bothered with this further, I will suggest that this be closed as a Keep. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No trouble at all. She would not need to be mentioned in the reviews, she would merely need to have a "significant role" in a "notable film". Proving the film notable may be easier than proving her role to be significant because Wikipedia really doesn't have any criteria or guidelines to elaborate on what "significant" really means. For the most part, I would say that, if the film is proven to be notable, a role can be judged to be significant if the actor is (a) credited for this role and (b) not credited as an extra. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again; the logic about how a role can be judged to be significant is exactly what I was looking for. Now I wish there were a whole bunch of AfDs about actors that I could analyze! LOL Again, I recommend that this article is a Keeper for the closing admin. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - actress had roles in multiple notable films in the 1940's. Just because the nominator does not remember her does not lessen her contributions as an actress 60 years ago. These types of articles add value to Wikipedia and should be kept. Esasus (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't nominate the article because I didn't remember her; in fact, I stated on the talk page of the article, and above, that I did specifically remember her. The reason I nominated the article is because you removed the PROD tag without adding any citations beyond your assertion that she was notable, apparently having missed the discussion on the talk page of the article where the process was being discussed. But thanks for your contribution, which prompted me to have this settled once and for all. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am proud to have been the catalyst of this discussion (by removing the PROD). It has proved to be very informative.Esasus (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep per good reasoning from Big Bird Camw (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another way to check the significance of a role is to see how high in the credit list it is. There's a lot of funny business going on there, but generally speaking the more important characters are further up the list. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been giving this some thought, and I'd suggest that in films before, say, 1950 it was common for an actor of colour to be listed at the bottom of the list, regardless of how important his/her role was to the film. Similarly, I have noticed a recent trend of giving acting credits at the end of a film based on when the person was seen in the film, chronologically. I understand from an actor friend that it can be based on the number of lines the person has in the film, excepting specific contractual arrangements that are made for the two or three principal actors. But then, that would leave out actors like Rondo Hatton who rarely spoke in a film. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This AfD is turning into a model of how an AfD should progress and I commend all involved. I have a question before I amend my opinion above to "Keep". We seem to have demonstrated that she appeared in several notable films, but I'm still slightly in the dark about how significant any of her roles in them were. I'm dissatisfied currently with the one in The Big Sleep. We would exclude someone who, for the sake of argument (sorry for the strawman here) was an Extra in 5 notable films, unless of course he achieved significant media coverage for the feat! All of which boils down to the question: how significant were her roles in Bury Me Dead and Federal Agent at Large? --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As I explained a bit earlier, it's a tricky process to determine what "significant" in "significant role" means for the purposes of Wikipedia since we have no official polices or guidelines with respect to this. I would be satisfied to say that, even if someone has made a career of being an extra, a role in a notable film where the actor was credited as something other than an extra should qualify to make the role significant. Having at least two such roles would then meet criterion 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Unfortunately, I can't post a link to a Wikipedia document that would confirm this; this is my interpretation of a somewhat vaguely worded notability guideline and it is again my belief that the guideline is purposely worded vaguely so that we can apply fairly liberal criteria in trying to determine what qualifies as significant because, in the end, it really is a subjective judgement call. Does that help at all? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but not really. As I said above, I'd retain a Delete for someone who appeared as an Extra in 2 or even 5 notable films. I'm totally happy to accept that the two films are notable. If the policy is grey, we can interpret it reasonably. For example, do we have any information about the nature of her roles in them? A suggestion: in reviews or synopses of the films in RS, are the roles mentioned? --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. Before I muddle the water any further, let me just make sure that I got it right this time: you're asking how to make sure that, for example, "Mildred" (the subject's character in Federal Agent at Large) in not an extra? Am I correct? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but also not what we might call a glorified extra. A substantial role. The kind that would get your name on the poster they'd stick on boards on the tube. --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think requiring the role to be as substantial as what you explained above is a bit too strict (mind you, I realize that the interpretation will vary greatly based on where you stand in the inclusionist vs. deletionist spectrum); I'm apt to interpret the significance of a role somewhat more liberally. Take Jaye Davidson for example. Other than his Oscar nominated role in The Crying Game, his IMDb profile has only two more entries: one of them is a 60 minute TV film which does not qualify under WP:Notability (films) and the other is a short appearance as Ra in Stargate. Although he was nominated for an Oscar, award nominations are not a criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER. Couple that with a somewhat strict interpretation of how significant his only other role in a notable film might have been and we might not have an article on this actor. Again, this is just a personal interpretation of a vaguely worded guideline and, given that it is vague, interpretations will be different from one person to the next but this is how I interpret a significance of a role. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:40, 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. _TalkIslander 01:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tomei[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER:

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

• Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions — the roles have not been significant.
• Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following — no evidence of this.
• Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment — no evidence of this.

Bongomatic 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BIO and I figure the only reason someone bothered to create the article is because of the association with his sister. §FreeRangeFrog 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- apparently all the roles on the filmography were bit parts. Could be redirected to Marisa Tomei except it seems unlikely that article will ever have more than one sentence on him. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Camw (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like the nominator I have been unable to find evidence this person meets the inclusion criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 25 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) 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think you may want to dust off your reading glasses. The criterion is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (emphasis added). Bongomatic 07:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's a tricky process to determine what "significant" in "significant role" means for the purposes of Wikipedia since we have no official polices or guidelines with respect to this. I would be satisfied to say that, even if someone has made a career of being an extra, a role in a notable film where the actor was credited as something other than an extra should qualify to make the role significant. Having at least two such roles would then meet criterion 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Unfortunately, I can't post a link to a Wikipedia document that would confirm this; this is my interpretation of a somewhat vaguely worded notability guideline and it is again my belief that the guideline is purposely worded vaguely so that we can apply fairly liberal criteria in trying to determine what qualifies as significant because, in the end, it really is a subjective judgment call. Esasus (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really as tricky as you make it out to be. A role is significant for generally the same reasons that anything else would be notable—so if the character were singled out for attention in reviews in reliable sources (not just trivially mentioned in passing, such as stating who played it), that would be evidence in favor of a role's being significant.

I haven't done that in this case (here I've just looked at where in the cash listings his roles show up), but in the past, I've taken a sampling of major reviews of each of a minor actor's films and searched to see if the actor's role or performance was covered in any detail. Time consuming, but if you wanted to demonstrate that any of the roles is verifiably significant, that would be a way. Bongomatic 11:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to be an expert on what a significant role is, and I can only seem to find one review that mentions Tomei by name, other than in a cast listing, here it is "his Zen-cool 'creative' pose plays well against his laid-back studio directors (Paul Giamatti and Adam Tomei). I'm inclined to say that this makes his roles in general insignificant, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Cool3 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a minor passing reference that I have to agree with your conclusion. Bongomatic 21:37, 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 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GameOn[edit]

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

Speedy deletion contested. Non-notable neologism; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete = The nominator is correct. Also, the statements in the article about what "go" means in a gaming context are pure nonsense. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:V, etc.... Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom et al. I don't seem to see category the speedy would go under though, it seems that it would have to have beeen prodded. FingersOnRoids 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Camw (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Car!!! – I mean GameOff!!!! I doubt Wiktionary would even accept this as a term. I would even argue that this is not notable enough independent of Wayne's World (film), in which this term was first coined. There is also no verifiability that this is widely used by gamers. Anyways, Party On!!! MuZemike 03:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Mister Senseless. It's look like to me that it was written from the article creator's thoughts. Versus22 _talk 05:05, 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 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandra Infante Covarrubias[edit]

Alejandra Infante Covarrubias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Won a subdivision of a notable contest for aspiring models, but career has been minor and non-notable - all her credits are red-links. No reliable sources to be found. An image search just brings up a few Facebook hits.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, few sources Tractops (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless reliable sources attesting to notability can be provided. This article was created through the WP:AFC process, which usually screens new articles well enough not to promote them to main space without appropriate references, but obviously it failed in this case. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:36, 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 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Box month[edit]

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

PRODDed as a non-notable protologism; de-PRODDed by anon IP, possibly the article creator. This article violates WP:NOT#OR and WP:MADEUP, has no real world notability, and is also an example of blatant WP:SOAP with such declarations as "This rare event calls for celebration throughout the month and the necessary spread by word of mouth." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I should also like to include, for your reading pleasure, the comment left by the creator on the article's Talk page:

The Box Month is a special rare occasion that occurs more infrequently than a leap year. It is the union of geometric simplicity and man-imposed time keeping with the calendar. Such rare instances of simplicity within a social construct should be noted and spread to the masses..

And there we have it. This article has been created to spread word of his discovery to the masses. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Should have been speedied as nonsense. andy (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd considered that. I just didn't think it was a blatant enough example for CSD G1. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete = I agree, this is pure nonsense. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely un-enyclopedic, non notable and original research. Clear delete, should be a speedy criteria for WP:MADEUP but oh well, probably will be snowballed anyway. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If WP:MADEUP had been a criteria for speedy deletion, I most certainly would have done so. But if you look at WP:CSD, hoaxes, neologisms and OR are not criteria for speedy deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I only tagged it with the original prod because I couldn't find a speedy category it fell under (e.g., hoaxes, OR, protologisms, obscure, no sources, etc). It needs to go, one way or another. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Camw (talk) 04:20, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Driss Temsamani[edit]

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

Unremarkable "marketing expert". Article created by self-admitted employee. Profiled (not as author, marketing expert, or community organizer) in French-language magazine, passing mention in another French-language article. Twice deleted as WP:CSD#A7. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion/Comment I found several articles on the internet by Moroccan and US publications where person "Driss Temsamani" is interviewed as expert in the field ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4].--Sim Hayune (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In addition to the poor French coverage, there are only passing mentions in the few English articles available on-line, yet this guy has been in the "e-marketing" business for eight years now. Ottre 14:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Confused about the reference to a self-admitted employee? Who are you referring to please so that I can answer. --Youssef Omali (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Both Telquel Magazine and Essor Magazine are leading magazines in Morocco and they were not passing reference. Telquel went over who the person was and his contributions of success stories and the Essor Magazine has 3 full pages of 18 years of contribution to the community. --Youssef Omali (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't speak the language, so may have been mistaken in regards to the French coverage. Normally I try to stress features from magazine over newspaper/newsletter articles. Here, my original point remains though: subject is not notable as a Moroccan-American or Moroccan-American businessman because there is no evidence of lasting, third-party coverage of him in English, as one would expect for a particularly successful/innovative marketing exec of his position. Quite simply, the waifan.com biography is not a reliable source, and none of the other mentions warrant inclusion. Ottre 02:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for clarifying, there are many expert people in many fields and I agree with you about long coverage by american media but the notability point is exactly that. This is a Moroccan immigrant to the USA who has established him self as a Community Organizer (Elected President last year for the Moroccan American Coalition, Founder of SOS Morocco) and Published Author. If you listen to the interview by the People speak radio Driss Temasamani Autobiography Interview with [[The People Speak Radio Interview in English]], you will see how relevant is to the American media a positive story of an immigrant. With President Barak Obama taking office, the work is open to the examples of first, second and third generations of immigrants who get established in the USA and contribute in a positive way.--Youssef Omali (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused about the media coverage comment. So the american media coverage has more weigh an lets say media coverage in Morocco like all the once noted? The Moroccan American adjective refers to a status not an expertise that needs coverage. What I am saying is that the Moroccan media is interestedf to cover its citizens that have succeeded more than american media. Those of us who live in the USA know who it works. Not all those who should be covered by american media are. Its a matter of "what's the story" and "the flavor of the moth". Anyhow thats for another discussion. My point is there are many Moroccan Americans in Wikipedia today not because they have been covered by american media but because they are relevant to their communities and have contributed to the establishment of these communities. --Youssef Omali (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I did not get the part about article being written in poor french. The 2 magazine are one of the leading media channels in Morocco. A country where French is spoken as the administrative language. Maybe I am miss-reading your comments but I hope that's not what you meant.--Youssef Omali (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The word marketing expert was use by 2 journalist to describe this person. If that's not allowed by wikipedia the words can be changed but why delete the article? Also, this is s Moroccan American and that is the language used by Journalists in Morocco? How about ABC news and People Speak Radio when they talked about this person as a Marketing Expert and Community organizer? Why was not that taking in consideration? --Youssef Omali (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete = The sparse references in things like ABC are passing mentions. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree on the ABS interview and I removed it as well as the one from Le Matin the leading news paper of Morocco talking about DrissTemsamani being elected President of the Moroccan American Coalition. But not the articles from Telquel Magazine and Essor Magazine. The articles were a full description of achievements and distinguishing the work done buy a Moroccan national leaving in the USA. Essor has several pages covering about 18 years of this person's work. There are several examples of approved articles in Wikipedia of people in the same category. What am I missing or are there other reasons to wan to delete this page beyond achievements and relevance? --Youssef Omali (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion/Comment There are many sources about the person "Driss Temsamani" beside those submitted by article creator you will find his biography and work in all major Moroccan media channels ^[5], ^[6]--Sim Hayune (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

, sources in both articles making mention of his audition for the job on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno set and his audition in general. Furthermore, Conan (at that time) was an unknown, as opposed to the others who auditioned for the job. I think if we're going to have an image of Conan O'Brien in either the Late Night or his own article, it would provide a historically significant look into how he looked back then to include the image that was deleted. Also, the policy-based discussions made no sense. There were only four and they all brought up the same point. There was no further support of the deletion claims, and the "Keep" comments (which did outweigh them with a vast majority" lent credence that the image should've been kept. With only four "Delete" comments and a total of 12 "Keep" and two "Strong keep" arguments, common sense says that the consensus of the discussion was to keep the image, not delete it. Srosenow 98 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nomination is an example of Ethnocentrism. Non-english sources are more difficult to locate using a google search. If he were an American I suggest that we would not be having this discussion. Esasus (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He lives in the US. His book was published in English, in the US. I'm not sure how ethnocentrism factors into this, particularly when you have no idea of the location, background, or ethnicity of the editors suggesting deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for making the point about Ethnocentrism. Although some of the references are foreign media (still very reputable ones like Telquel Magazine and Essor Magazine), one of the main reason of relevance of the person is that he is one of the first Moroccan Americans to publish a book in english in the USA. I also should point to the fact that there are other Moroccan Americans today with live published pages in Wikipedia with similar background and references that were not disputed. Maybe it was just a misunderstanding. --Youssef Omali (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment without recommendation - the discussion doesn't need a list of references - put them in the article itself with some context and improve the article. When I participate in an AfD, I put more weight on the citations that are in the articles themselves than any that are put here. Once the AfD is closed, the citations need to be included in a kept article, anyway. If this ends in "delete" only the citations in the discussion will remain... for as long as Wikipedia exists. B.Wind (talk) 20:21, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenobile[edit]

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

Neologism/WP:DICDEF, hasn't caught on widely from what I can tell. Distinct from a "Greenmobile", 33 google hits for Greenobile -Greenmobile, all centered around a community site at www.greenobile.com. Topic fails WP:V and WP:NOT. Amalthea 14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as the editor who ((prod))ed this article for "WP:NN neologism or WP:NFT" Toddst1 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is nothing more than a dictionary definition and it is not in wide use. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TLi[edit]

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

Although there is a (minor) claim for notability in terms of the airplay, this would seem to be a non notable band, which hasn't even apparently started playing publicly yet. Fails WP:BAND. CultureDrone (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the closest this band comes to notability as per WP:BAND is #11. Having failed even that (Played once) it has no claim to notability. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: MySpace band. Insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable and fails WP:BAND Camw (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Best wishes for the band's success, but they're not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia yet. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:56, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Energy Movement[edit]

New Energy Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is a soapbox essay aimed at promoting fringe science. It fails WP:OR ("unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position"), WP:SOAP ("Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising") and it's badly referenced too. andy (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite merge: there is a surprisingly good article on the movement in Alternatives for Personal and Community Transformation (12:5, Aug/Sep 2004) which suggests that the organisation has lasting notability. Ottre 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This makes no sense - merge with what? And this isn't an article about that organisation, anyway. andy (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the organisation of the movement... as in the verb organising. Merge to one of the grassroots-related articles. Ottre 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that one coming! Completely yorked, middle and off. But I confess to continued puzzlement about your proposed merge. Grassroots is very interesting but I'm not sure which related article you had in mind. Merging with Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign might be rather fun, although perhaps a little confusing for the uninitiated. andy (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you think this is encyclopedic enough for inclusion? The author is far from an independent source, but she has written a book as well. It's a shame there is no specific article on the grassroots/local future of the region, as the "Pacific Northwest homeland" idea used to have a lot of influence (as you say, also picked up in South Africa). Ottre 01:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely half a bar behind you, but I'm doing my best. If I understand you correctly all "grassroots" articles are equivalent in some deep sense and could potentially be merged. So this article which is (I think) about a grassroots movement to "tap into an infinite amount of clean energy from anywhere in the Universe" can, on grounds of sociopolitical convergence, be merged into an unfortunately non-existent article about the putative land rights of north-western American aborigines? I have to say that I suspect that wikipedia conservatives would raise many fallacious and unreasonable objections. But hey, it may be worth the fight! andy (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - per nom. Also, this is spam, original research, and so poorly formatted that it makes little sense. I would not "salt" it, as it could be a real stub some day. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G11) for polluting Wikipedia with spam of the blatant nature. MuZemike 01:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - spam and original research.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per common sense. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as unencyclopedic essay. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musician1955 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, may be something there is formatted like a Wikipedia entry instead of whatever that is, but there are no cites and it reads like OR. I could be convinced with a rewrite, but might as well delete until such an event happens.JRP (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to find a way of extracting a bit of meaning from it and stubbing it but I'm not up to the task - basically it's meaningless drivel. andy (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When I first read this I thought it might be a copyright violation since it reads like a press release. Subsequent searches on Google came up with absolutely nothing relating to this movement excepting the Wikipedia article and their own website. Entirely original research and politically biased POV with no third party sources, non-trivial or otherwise to back up its claims. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. unsourced essay. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:54, 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 speedy delete. per WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#G11. Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wondershare DVD Ripper[edit]

Wondershare DVD Ripper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy. No apparent notability per WP:N, nothing in the article other than a description and link to the company website, which would seem to imply spam. Nothing from Google indicating any particular notability. CultureDrone (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as blatant advertising. While this may be consumer software, no importance is shown, and the tone of the article would require a total rewrite even if some notability were present. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant spam 216.211.255.98 (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Per ((db-spam)) or WP:CSD#G4. This page (or what I assume is just a spelling variation of it) was speedied yesterday. §FreeRangeFrog 19:28, 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 00:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Muñoz[edit]

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

Nominated by an IP editor, who says they have attempted to research this unsourced biography (which also used to exist as a duplicate here) but have been unable to find sources. I've done the same via Google just now and, other than Wikipedia mirrors and a wrestler of a similar name, nothing leaps out. Presumably there's an official list somewhere of all the 2008 Olympic competitors - I couldn't say where - that would clarify this, but without that, a smell of hoax (or wishful thinking) pervades this article. ➲ redvers ^{sit down next to me} 13:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find no mention of him on the official Beijing 2008 website including under M on the list of athletes [8] - therefore can only assume it's a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs)
• Delete as unverifiable. It seems entirely plausible on the face of it, but an exhaustive web-search (on top of those already done by the nom) yields nothing. I would have expected him to appear here or here, for starters, but I'm afraid it's a no-show. Info is also contradicted by these two WP pages. onebravemonkey 14:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. My searches too turn up empty. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 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. MBisanz ^talk 07:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

André Henri[edit]

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

Delete. This is not a given name - Andre is the given name, Henri is one of the middle names. On WP, we do not keep pages to list everyone with a certain combination of given name and middle name. Please see Frank William's AfD. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some pairs of names are given as a specific combination (e.g., the common Spanish forename Jose Maria), however I see no particular reason to believe that is the case here. The article also states that "Andre Henri may refer to" the two people listed, but a quick examination of sources about both people doesn't turn up any instances of them actually being referred to in this fashion. JulesH (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those who have contributed here may wish to comment on the AfDs of theses similar pages: Frank William, Paulo Jorge, Marie Constant and Francis William. Boleyn2 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (comment that I've posted on Frank William AfD page. I am similarly unconvinced one way or another with André Henri.^{The immediately preceding strikethru (in contrast to all strikethru that follows in this contrib) was performed by the signing editor 26 minutes after the sig}) Comment without recommendation - it appears that nom is basing this (and perhaps other) nominations, not on MOS:DAB (which is actually rather silent about this situation) but on WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead. If the nom wishes to nuke ((given name)) pages, he/she should start the discussion as to whether the mention of given names should not be mentioned at all in MOS:DAB; similarly, WP:ALLORNOTHING is being implied here, yet this is not a valid reason for either keeping or deleting an article, a redirect, or even a disambiguation page. In addition, nom "confesses to preferring the deletion of all ((given name)) pages that don't offer a substantial discussion of the origin and meaning of the name itself" - yet MOS:DAB discourages such a presentation in article space in the first place. At present I remain unconvinced one way or the other as I am unsure as to whether these people are referred to regularly as "Frank William" as opposed to simply "Frank". On the other hand, claiming that this is a vanity page denies good faith, which itself is a violation of one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia (two of them, actually).
  --147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Additional (but non-superscripted) strikethru added to ameliorate the damage done by this contrib. --Jerzy•t 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  • ATTENTION: The Nominator in this AfD is NOT the "nom" that the above reckless and abusive IP is referring to; it is i who am the libeled party. The above travesty can be evaluated in its original context, where the text misrepresented here actually appears, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank William.
    --Jerzy•t 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    
  • This complaint, not about my words but its misrepresentation of them, and also declining to quote them so i speak for myself, is also a violation of WP:NPA, as it is not an argument about the topic under discussion but about my supposed intentions.
    (Please note that i struck thru the phrases that make it appear that the nom in this AfD process is the target of the falsehoods stated, but avoided any strikethru that would merely label falsehoods, lest it distract from the crucial point of mis-stated identity.)
    Most importantly among to the falsehoods, i did in fact say

    ... but i have to also reflect on the purpose of these pages. Are they not primarily a diffuse sort of vanity page, of the variety suggested in John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt?

  which does not concern good faith, since both ignorance of WP:N and misperception of one's own vanity as something else are common, and neither is likely to involve bad faith. --Jerzy•t 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Delete. The connections here are too tenuous to make sense as a disambiguation, unlike the possibility presented with Frank William - in the case of Kostermans, "Henri" was rarely pronounced when someone referred to him - it was often omitted. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Del. There are pairs of names like "John Mark" (the name of the reputed author of the Gospel of Mark), that seem to occur together far more than statstics of the individual names would predict. But apparently random pairs of just of the most popular American male names (which cover 90% of that population) would run over a million articles, and the corresponding ones for American females over 4 million. By the end of WP's 16th year, that may be no big deal, but for now it would be a major change in the nature of the 'pedia's infrastructure, to little effect.
  --Jerzy•t 10:17, 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 delete. _TalkIslander 01:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Falbo[edit]

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

Fails general notability guideline because there are not multiple, independent sources that discuss this guy (despite what appears to be an active internet marketing campaign) and fails the notability guideline for creative professionals. Article history swings wildly from gushing fan praise to extremely critical text - it would be worth the BLP and NPOV nightmare if this guy met the article criteria, but he doesn't. Somno (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Here's an article that appears to be specifically about him and his style. To read its' contents one must pay for the article. Minor painters don't get as much press coverage as say, minor musicians, because of the different ways they advertise, so one article goes a long way in demonstrating notability. Themfromspace (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- There are not enough reliable secondary sources available on this artist to meet WP:NOTABILITY— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwishiwazjohng (talk • contribs)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The NewsBank reference cited above appears to be an article in his local paper. I would to see more references than that before I could be convinced that we should have an article on him. Capitalistroadster (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. THF (talk) 22:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore in fiction[edit]

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

Laundry list of non-notable trivia. Hnsampat (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• An article subject can be written on the topic, as Baltimore is one of the most historical cities in the United States, but there isn't anything salvageable here. Delete for now, but will reconsider with a major rewrite. Secret ^account 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If memory serves me correctly, the city featured in a number of older superhero comics. Closing admin might want to put in a request at WP:Wikiproject Comics. Ottre 14:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment An "in popular culture" article by any other name smells just as sweet. This is a not-very-interesting compilation of sightings of Baltimore, the worst example being "In Season 7 of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, Mike Keppler, Grissom's temporary replacement, touches a dead body, to which Catherine Willows says, 'Is that how they do it in Baltimore?'". If one can sort through all the crap, it turns out there are a number of films that take place in Baltimore, Maryland. I suspect that it's because Baltimore is bland enough that it won't overshadow a story, something like Indianapolis or Denver or Portland with no well-known landmarks. Mandsford (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Baltimore is the home town of author Anne Tyler and moviemaker John Waters, the setting for The Accidental Tourist, Cry-Baby, and Hairspray. [9] The new movie He's Just Not That Into You is also filmed there.[10]. This topic has the potential to be a useful and interesting article. betsythedevine (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Betsythedevine's logic. In addition to the ones she mentioned, Homicide: Life on the Street and The Wire were also set and filmed in Baltimore, so info on this topic would not likely be hard to find. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just needs some trimming to remove the ones that are just incidental. Any work set primarily in Baltimore, or where its an important part of the story, notable enough for a wp article could & should be listed here. Such articles are a well-established part of WP. DGG (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly rename Baltimore in popular culture. As discussed above, Baltimore has figured prominently in stories, jokes, movies, and fiction. I'd also add the movie Saved! as being filmed in Baltimore. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above. Needs a better opening. EagleFan (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as synthesis and non-notable trivia. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though Baltimore is not the most notable city in the US, it has had a heavy impact on fictitious works. Many of these are hard to identify because they can seem vague, or may occur without people even realizing it. This page helps the reader identify exactly what they are looking for, and may be helpful in many different settings. Yes, the article does need work, but the overall idea is golden.Interzil (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, among which is Frommer's Maryland & Delaware which devotes a page to the subject, and "Destination: Baltimore" from The Literary Guide to the World at Salon.com. DHowell (talk) 22:46, 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 07:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis William[edit]

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

Delete. This is not a given name - Francis is the given name, William is one of the middle names. On WP, we do not keep pages to list everyone with a certain combination of given name and middle name. Please see Frank William's AfD. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those who contribute here may wish to comment on the AfDs of theses similar pages: André Henri, Paulo Jorge, Marie Constant and Frank William. Boleyn2 (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Del. There are pairs of names like "John Mark" (the name of the reputed author of the Gospel of Mark), that seem to occur together far more than statistics of the individual names would predict. But apparently random pairs of just of the most popular American male names (which cover 90% of that population) would run over a million articles, and the corresponding ones for American females over 4 million. By the end of WP's 16th year, that may be no big deal, but for now it would be a major change in the nature of the 'pedia's infrastructure, to little effect.
  --Jerzy•t 07:44, 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. _TalkIslander 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard I. Goldstein[edit]

Howard I. Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem notable per Wikipedia standards Nerfari (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets at least the minimum standard for notability for me. Also, article has been around since 2006 without seemingly being tagged for anything before now. In Wikipedia terms, that's a long time. Peridon (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a Grandfather clause I don't know about? LOL Nerfari (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Strikes me that someone would have tagged this by now if there were a possibility of NN. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe everyone else was thinking the same thing :) Nerfari (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed 'puffery' - they didn't consider him NN. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He's just a lawyer. Not notable enough for inclusion. Martin^msgj 20:26, 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]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing the general notability criteria by means of having had no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, to coin a phrase. Simply fails to assert notability in his field. onebravemonkey 13:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless more can be found about his legal career. The other activities are too minor to be significant. That we just noticed something here a long time is NN is not a reason to avoid deleting it once we do notice. The older content needs review from time to time. DGG (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable lawyer. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:04, 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 00:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Constant[edit]

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

Delete. This is not a given name - Marie is the given name, Constant is one of the middle names; one of these they are both middle names, neither were refered to as Marie Constant. On WP, we do not keep pages to list everyone with a certain combination of given name and middle name. Please see Frank William's AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn2 (talk • contribs) 2009/02/24 08:36:46

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Page simply asserts that two people are known as "Marie Constant" but I can find no example of sources calling them by this name. It is merely part of their names, in one case separated by an additional name. JulesH (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's generally no need to disambiguate people by their middle names. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those who have contributed here may wish to comment on the AfDs of theses similar pages: André Henri, Paulo Jorge, Frank William and Francis William. Boleyn2 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for a very different reason than indicated above: Constant is actually part of Marie Philibert Constant Sappey's surname (the fact remained that he was more commonly referred by Philibert than Marie in a similar fashion to having John Calvin Coolidge being better known by his middle name), while Andre Marie Constant Dumeril's name is actually André Marie-Constant Duméril; so the the entire "Marie Constant" is his middle name without the diacritics and the hyphen. This is too afield for the usefulness of this even for a redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:30, 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next Limit Technologies[edit]

Next Limit Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. No evidence of this company being notable. Boleyn2 (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am surprised that the company behind the Maxwell Render and other well known tools is being considered for deletion. The company is notable. For example, a quick Google Web and Google News search easily verifies that they have been awarded the "Segundo de Chomón 2009" by the Spanish Academy of Arts and Cinematographic Sciences for "significant technical contribution to the development of the film industry with its RealFlow software." Source. I am curious to know how Next Limit has been determined to be not notable. Rilak (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was most likely determined to be non-notable because this claim wasn't in the article and because the nominator either didn't find it or didn't try to. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the source found above. Winners of awards like these are notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator It wasn't clear in the article and I didn't find this when checking for Internety sources. Boleyn2 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I did a bit more searching today and found this from last year. The source says that the people beind RealFlow (Next Limit staff) were awarded a Technical Achievement Award by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It also mentions how notable Next Limit is. I think there is no doubt that Next Flow is a notable company. Perhaps this AfD should be withdrawn? Rilak (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:N, WP:V per technical award and other non-trivial news coverage. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:52, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 6th blink-182 Studio Album[edit]

Untitled 6th blink-182 Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Let's wait until it's released first.    SIS  22:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete my smashing it with the hammer. There's also nothing in the article. MuZemike 14:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article lacks any meaningful, WP:reliably sourced content. Recreate when more information about the album (for example title, track list, specific release date, etc) is published. -- saberwyn 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hammer time (delete): The band has announced a reunion, yes, but absolutely no details have yet been announced concerning a potential future album. Until such details are announced this is blatant WP:CRYSTAL. An article can wait until there is actualy verifiable content to put in it ie. title, tracklist, release date, etc. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I didn't know there was a WP:HAMMER, but this seems like a good time to get acquainted with it. Camw (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If I had a hammer, I'd use it to smash this article to pieces. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , STOP.......Hammer time.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:20, 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 00:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Watson[edit]

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

This article was prodded but the creator objected. Article is still unverifiable. None of the references are reliable. Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing notable at all, and nothing reliable for verification.216.211.255.98 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like a complete work of fiction to me. PKT(alk) 19:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is quite clearly sitting somewhere between "blatant hoax" and "unverifiable information about a non-notable topic". The phrase "Due to Randy Watson's performance in Coming To America, the CIA recruited him possibly to become a special agent, although this is not published anywhere and is revealed only through personal interviews with Randy and his mentor Rev. Brown." is a particularly amusing eyebrow-raiser that violates WP:NOR right on the face of it. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Given the lack of verifiable sources, I find it little more than interesting fiction. Sorry ttonyb1 (talk) 01:40, 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 00:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Lda.[edit]

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

nn firm Checkmao (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I tried to expand this article not too long ago. I searched for sources, and found none, even in Portuguese, that weren't just briefly documenting their auctioning of their name in Dec. 2007 (which appears to have not resulted in anything, judging by their website). I couldn't even find out what they actually do as a company. Someone with more knowledge of Portuguese might be able to expand it and add reliable sources, but their notability solely rests on that one event in 2007, which doesn't seem to be enough to me. -kotra (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the only coverage is news about trying to sell the name. I'd say that WP:NOTNEWS applies in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 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 00:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Whyte[edit]

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

Prod Tag was removed, so taking to AfD. This kid appears to fail WP:ATHLETE, in that he is only playing at a domestic level and using that competition's stats pages to cite the page. • \ / (⁂) 10:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although he probably does fail the criteria for a wikipedia page, i see no problem in allowing the page to remain.--Acb4341 (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is the author of the page. Acb4341, while there may be no harm, Wikipedia is not a webhost. Entries need to have a certain level of notability. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically, the page remains. What is the worst thing that could happen?--Acb4341 (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It creates a dangerous precedent in which every teenager who has played junior sport becomes worthy of a Wikipedia entry. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. May i ask you, how many articles such as this one are created every day on wikipedia?--Acb4341 (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well?--Acb4341 (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as though you aren't able to answer my question, i am going to assume that you have backed down and allowed the page to remain. I agree that this is in the best interests of everybody, and i wish to extend my congratulations on your noble decision. This is a breakthrough in administrator-user relations in wikipedia, and i trust that it will allow myself and my wikipedia colleagues to freely use the wikipedia page as an information tool. Once again, thankyou for your kind and thoughtful decision, i promise you won't regret it.--Acb4341 (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means I had to sleep. Sleep is common for people on Wikipedia, as is dealing with non-notable pages. You'd be surprised how often people try to create an article which fails even the most liberal application of guidelines. Many articles can be improved to the point of saving, but unfortunately, as is evidenced below by the oppose votes, this article cannot be improved to the point of keeping it here. If you really want to keep the information on this page, copy the information before it is deleted and find some webspace of Wikia, Freehostia or another site in which you can have complete control over it. ∗ \ / (⁂) 20:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. I don't think I'm a deletionist, but if they're not notable, small-time athletes shouldn't have an article. Skinny87 (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete also. Fails both in basic criteria and athletes section in WP:NOTABILITY. E Wing (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as previously stated216.211.255.98 (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly fails to meet the notability criteria. Wikipedia is not a web host where you can publish anything you want. --L. Pistachio (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails notability criteria of both WP:Notability and WP:Athlete Camw (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For all the reasons mentioned above. Jevansen (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not even close to Wikipedia notability, absolutely fails WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lets be fair and atleast give him some more time to try and make the article notable. A quick google search provides enough information to tell us that he is someone of major influence in his region.58.166.227.192 (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you be more specific with some of the links you found? I did a Google search on "ben-whyte cricket", and all I found was this article, his Facebook, his Twitter, and a hit at MyCricket. —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Give him a chance to try and meet the notability critriaReconfirmation (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have a strong suspicion that the two Keep votes came from the same editor, based on their similar edit history. [11] [12] WWGB (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. He's playing club cricket at a non-notable club and on its junior team. Maybe when he starts playing top-level cricket (what's the Australian equivalent of the inter-county competitions?) he'll be notable, but not now. —C.Fred (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Falls well short of notability. Murtoa (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Athlete. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:Notability and WP:Athlete. Bidgee (talk) 02:24, 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.