The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take Back NYU![edit]

Take Back NYU! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about an organization or student movement that was previously PRODed and seems to still need to meet the requirements for inclusion based on neutrality and basic notability guidelines. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I would lean towards keeping this, as the group's activities have attracted considerable attention in various media sources. I would add that it needs some work on neutrality. --L. Pistachio (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This group's page only exists because of an isolated incident that was hardly even covered in local NYC newspapers. Thus there is not significant coverage by secondary sources, as required by the notability guidelines. NYU Local and the Washington Square News are NYU student-run media outlets, which do not qualify as secondary.—Noetic Sage 18:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This involves one major protest, so it may involve notoriety for a single event, for which it may be deleted. Disclosure: I'm not taking a stance because of a conflict of interest - the BF works for NYU. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 'famous' for a single event; no lasting notability (as of yet). If they become involved in a prolonged campaign that receives media attention, they may become notable, but I don't think they are because of this one protest. Robofish (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is an element of WP:SOAPBOX to this article, and WP:NOTNEWS applies. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 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. Xclamation point 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kilgore Books & Comics[edit]

Kilgore Books & Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a second-hand bookstore which has only one source, and that source does not even mention the subject. 31 unique Google hits including Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of significant treatment in reliable sources that would allow this to satisfy the requirements of WP:ORG. The final bulleted item at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Companies is also relevant. Deor (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable as well as reeking of advertisement LetsdrinkTea 23:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. No evidence of notability. --L. Pistachio (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultra Cheesy Flubbed Up Nuclear Cheesballs[edit]

The Ultra Cheesy Flubbed Up Nuclear Cheesballs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band with little claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC. No professional reviews or charting found at allmusic, no charting found at Billboard, no professional reviews found at metacritic. No independent, reliable sources showing notability in first half dozen pages of ghits; nothing found at gnews. WP:COI issues not helping. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, No evidence that this is notable at all. LetsdrinkTea 23:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Ancemy (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've tried searching for sources as well, including in a library database of news articles, and also on the site of the newspaper that would seem most likely to cover this band – I could find no sources. Delete unless sources appear before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and my previous (declined) prod. tomasz. 10:34, 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 delete. Xclamation point 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Stanbaugh[edit]

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

Possible Vanity article (author may be connected to subject and company), no independent reliable sources that could establish notability. See also the closely related COI article on his company, up for AfD here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No relevant Google News hits that pass the non-press release test (see [1]). Drmies (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find press releases and many directory type entries but no articles written about him. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State Class Battleship BB[edit]

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

Disputed prod, an article that references some online web fiction. Seems to fail notability guidelines, as currently being discussed here, as well as therefore lacking reliable sources. A similar article by the author, State Class Battleship, has also been prodded. Benea (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page after the prod was disputed, for much the same reason:

State Class Battleship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Benea (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As original PRODer. §FreeRangeFrog 22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable original fiction. --L. Pistachio (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced, non-notable personal fiction. Also delete State Class Battleship Yamato which is another duplicate article. Edward321 (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering the several duplicate versions of the article that have been created, I recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as advertising 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment don't forget the article State Class Battleship Yamato 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unpublished fiction. Also State class battleship. . . Rcawsey (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When I first saw these articles appear, I just assumed they were something in the US Navy.... The work they seem to be related to is not only online, it's published. Unfortunately, it's published through lulu which means self-published. That casts quite a lot of doubt on its notability. I wish the author luck in getting proper publication if the book's up to it. Peridon (talk) 00:13, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Anuj filter[edit]

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

Nonnotable neologism. Also, contested prod was: Looks like something made up one day by Anuj Panday in 2009. I agree. Evb-wiki (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a NEO. flaminglawyer 23:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: No context (A1) and/or patent nonsense (G1); nothing on it can be found through a Google search. -- Crowsnest (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a NEO Marek.69 ^talk 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G1. Salih (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G1. PhGustaf (talk) 23:01, 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 delete. Xclamation point 06:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Forsberg[edit]

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

Marrying someone notable, working as a model, and having had a bit part in a barely notable film does not equate to notability. I can find various music press references to her, but entirely as a secondary figure (i.e., the wife of a Stone Temple Pilots bandmember). Haven't found anything that establishes individual notability. Forsberg is no Yoko Ono or Courtney Love. Article is entirely unsourced, and also includes material (an allegation of bipolar disorder) that should probably be removed per WP:BLP if this is kept. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of reliable sources to indicate notability LetsdrinkTea 23:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of independent notability and lack of sources. Adam Zel (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. No independent notability. Only Google News sources are articles about Weiland. THF (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing to suggest notability independent of her husband 7triton7 (talk) 06:11, 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 delete. Xclamation point 06:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Rogers[edit]

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

Contested prod. I reiterate my reason for prodding: I cannot find any reliable secondary sources (as shown [2] and [3]) that can establish any notability of this living person. No logical place for a merge or redirection. (Note that this is different from the artist of the same name.)

The lone source added after the prod removal is from a fan-made wiki and hence is not reliable per the reliable source guideline or the verifiability policy. MuZemike 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LetsdrinkTea 23:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Dolores Rogers more than passes the notability threshold of WP:ENTERTAINER which requires that she has:

a) had significant roles in multiple notable (other) productions: of which the Mario video game series certainly qualifies as a "notable production" and her voice roles in these games are certainly significant; if that is not enough, then;

b) a large fan base or a significant "cult" following: for which the Mario gamers certainly have a cult following; if that is not enough, then:

c) made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment: which is again true for Dolores Rogers who has clearly made prolific and unique contributions to the video game voice over field of entertainment.

Clearly, for the reasons outlines above, Dolores Rogers is notable per WP:ENTERTAINER, and therefore she is a Strong Keep. I consider IMDB.com to be a reliable secondary source for an entertainer's credits. Esasus (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks the appropriate coverage from reliable sources, as nominator demonstrated, and doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. This is all the mention of her Wiki really requires.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Bowser_Jr#Bowser_Jr. (as her primary voice acting role). Verifiablity is the main issue here. Also, of the points mentioned by Esasus:

a) indicates that she should certainly be mentioned in the articles for the works she has appeared in. However, this is not a "significant role".

b) WP:ENTERTAINER asks that the person has a large fan base, not the work itself.

c) her list of acting roles does not suggest anything unique or innovative; 10 roles between 2001 and 2006 is not "prolific".

So as far as I can tell, the article fails the notability guideline on all three counts. Marasmusine (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons well-outlined above. Adam Zel (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Marasmusine. decltype 21:15, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Zheng[edit]

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

Member of a seemingly non-notable 1990s Korean dance group, Micky Jung (or Miki Zheng as he is called here) is only otherwise notable for his 2007 marriage to Harisu. Notability is not inherited; fails WP:MUSIC. PC78 (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, could not find any evidence of WP:N on Google LetsdrinkTea 21:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Until he's notable on his own with some sources, he shouldn't get his own page. Maybe merge with Harisu? Ancemy (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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 Deleted by PMDrive1061. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Liey[edit]

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

Delete apparent hoax for which speedy was declined. Google has little about "Johnathan Liey" and what little there is doesn't seem to be this guy. Also, I'm left with an abiding suspicion of an article about someone who is not a singer who purportedly died with a syringe in hand that has popular posthumous "tracks". Perhaps not blatant enough of a hoax for some, but convinces me. Anyone else? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. To me, hoax=vandalism and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to clog legit AfD discussions with this kind of bovine excrement. User's other edits are pure garbage and he's about to be shown the door. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have in fact blocked this guy. All of his edits were just useless. If anyone's up for a speedy under WP:SNOW, I'm good. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. It's just nonsense. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and I second the call for Snow. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per nomination.Smallman12q (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Glad to do it, believe me. Would someone be kind enough to close the discussion after I delete this thing? I've never done it. Thanks, all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slaveboy Beatdown[edit]

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

Non-notable film with non-notable star (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gia Primo). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The download link at the bottom makes it look like spam/advertisement LetsdrinkTea 21:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam and advertisement. Ancemy (talk) 23:41, 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 - snowball closure. Marasmusine (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dolman[edit]

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

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

Delete Appears to be written almost entirely by the person himself; autobiography. Non-notable. Fails Google test. One ref which can be checked is dead. Award seems pretty minor anyway. Not notable for winning one award for game which 'pedia doesn't even have an article on. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. The primary editor of this article hastily created the Avoidance (video game) article when I mentioned it had no article. It is poorly written and also includes one dead reference. It should also be deleted, failing the Google test, but I haven't gotten around to it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article per WP:OR and WP:SPS LetsdrinkTea 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - comes nowhere near meeting WP:BLP or WP:Notability. dramatic (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I added the AfD for the video game as well. They both fail the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog 22:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, see nothing on NZ Herald, Stuff, Google, fails WP:N. XLerate (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability. This wasn't a completely wasted two minutes though, the article itself is fairly amusing. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Not a notable person even if people could find him on Google. Seems to be written by the person himself to gain publicity.Gilagod101 (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I find it amusing the he provides a newspaper ref for his date of birth. However he was born on a Sunday ( allegedly ) so there was almost certainly no paper published that day ( even if he was born early enough to meet the deadline ). - SimonLyall (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this smells of a hoax to me. I can't find anything on the award mentioned except in these two articles; and The original editor and now an IP have made attack-type edits (see the infobox). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austenasia[edit]

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

Another micronation, very recently created and listed in the List of micronations. Search returns a grand total of 118 hits. I'm not sure what subset of the notability guidelines this would fall under, but seeing that the list is protected I figure these are created every other day, so pulling to AfD for consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I guess this falls under WP:WEB, but it doesn't meet the criteria there. One mention in a local newspaper isn't significant real-life media coverage. flaminglawyer 23:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things you made up. Some guy decided to write an article stating that his house is a country. That doesn't make it so. --L. Pistachio (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it did get a mention in a local newspaper. It wasn't declared so on WP. flaminglawyer 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he did make it up... flaminglawyer 23:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molossia was also made up just like Austenasia, but that has an article written about it. Austenasia has been written about in a newspaper and is mentioned on lots of other micronation's webpages.jshn 17:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trausten2 (talk • contribs) — Trausten2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• DeleteWay too obscure. --Sloane (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands now, it fails WP:V, not enough 3rd party mention, it could even be a hoax. Mixed history of keeping such articles, Principality of Sealand is here, with extensive 3rd party coverage, police shoot-outs and all. But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danmark (island) was (rightfully) deleted. Perhaps the solution would be to create a List of contested micronations with amusement value Power.corrupts (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It fails WP:GNG and arguably comes under WP:NOTNEWS. Bondegezou (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Single mention in a local news. Fails notability criteria. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete Is mentioned in lots of other micronations websites, is quite an active micronation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trausten2 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And those websites are self published sources, so they are not reliable. So they do not demonstrate notability. Taemyr (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per most above and as per the rule that freeweb/web sites cant be used as ref's/sources.  rdunnPLIB  08:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources are largely self-published, SYN, or Wikipedia entries. THF (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete What about the Republic of Saugeais? That has only two references, at least one of which is self published, but that's not nominated for deletion. Austenasia is a far more prominent micronation, with more reliable references and a greater number of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trausten2 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 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 delete. Xclamation point 06:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drew money[edit]

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

Article was tagged for ((notability)) tags were removed and three references added, but claims to meet WP:MUSIC still very weak. One link is broken, and the other two are what I would call trivial coverage (one list of tracks he has helped produced, the other listing him as one of several people who produced music for a video game). I'm not too familiar with the business of music production, so I'm open to arguments of why he would count as notable within the music production business, but, at the moment, I'm afraid to say this looks like an article intended to promote the individual's career. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not established. Possible spam. --Sloane (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Added more references and fixed broken link. this is a notable producer.--Damunnyman (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He fails claim to meet WP:MUSIC because he is not a musician, he is a music engineer (aka Entertainment industry), and a notable one at that. The fact that he is credited in numerous notable productions is what is required to establish notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. See the current helpful discussion at Sonia Darrin
  • But he's a producer and engineer--Damunnyman (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that WP:ENTERTAINER is aimed at other front-of-stage people, such as actors, comedians etc. I don't believe it was ever the intention to apply this rule to back-room contributors. I admit the lack of any guidelines for people who work behind the scenes doesn't help this discussion, but that's what AfDs are for, to make decisions in these matters. Having looked through the new references (only a quick one, I admit), all I can find are credits of "engineer" to several notable albums and an article about him in a university alumni magazine, and, at the moment, I don't think it's enough - notability has never been about association with big names. It's a promising career though, maybe he'll meet notability standards in a few years' time. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But he does meet the criteria for musician under WP:MUSIC including his work on Grammy nominated albums as well as platinum album sales.--Damunnyman (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, being a member of a notable band explicitly does not confer notability on that individual, so I don't see how working as a sound engineer for a song can count as notability. Okay, WP:MUSIC does say that an individual who has been a member of two or more notable bands is generally enough to confer notability, but that's a whole different league to having been an engineer for two or more notable artists. Being the producer of several award-winning albums would be a different matter, but I've not seen anything in the article to back up credentials as a producer. Come back with that and Drew Money will be in a better position to have an article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has 4 producer credits on major albums as well as programming which is basically the same thing. Did you even read the whole thing?--216.189.162.176 (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article is now splatted full of references, but none of them establish notability. All that it really establishes is that he has a job in the recording industry. -- Whpq (talk) 21:28, 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. There is a widespread misconception that the success and size of a company can replace being the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This is not the case. If you want to get on Wikipedia, get your rolodex out and start calling journalists. Tell them about your clients, your awards, your employees. Once they've talked about you, so can we. yandman 14:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANXeBusiness[edit]

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

Corporate profile about a company that fails WP:CORP. No indication of notability beyond the fact that it exists. A bio was also created for the CEO, which also fails to establish notability in any way. §FreeRangeFrog 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that ANXeBusiness satisfies the noteworthy criteria. ANXeBusiness operates the Automotive Network Exchange (ANX) which is one of the largest extranets in the world. The ANX connects auto suppliers, large and small, with the major auto manufacturers and enables secure collaboration within the automotive supply chain. Thanks, --Gdmoore20247 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another point. ANXeBusiness recently was awarded "Best of the Best Michigan Business" by Corp! Magazine (http://www.pr-inside.com/anxebusiness-corp-awarded-best-of-r1051969.htm). I didn't include that link in the article as I didn't want the article to appear too self-promotional. I can add this if it helps improve notability. --65.160.66.179 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's not a very big or competitive award--the article in Corp Magazine lists a TON of companies that won that award in various categories; ANXeBusiness won in the Technology Firms category, along with 12 other companies. This seems to be clutching at straws. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Award footnote. Yes, 12 other companies were recognized in the technology category. However, there are thousands of technology companies in Michigan. Another interesting source is Green.TMCnet.com. They are paying attention to ANXeBusiness because ANX has become a notable provider of services that enable business telecommuting (cloud based managed remote access).--Gdmoore20247 (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Great Lakes IT Reportis a notable secondary source that covers technology companies in Michigan. ANXeBusiness is a frequently mentioned in their articles, blogs and webcasts. --Gdmoore20247 (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliable sources that establish notability are added before this AfD closes. Anyone and their dog can make claims here at AfD that so-and-so should be considered notable because of x and y, but unless and until sources are cited, the article is bad and should be removed. I have nominated the CEO's own puff piece for deletion as well, here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since I find no evidence that this company has ever been the subject of independent, in-depth coverage. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a technology company providing managed network connectivity and tools to global businesses which enable secure collaboration within or between enterprises. In other words, yet another non-consumer online business using Wikipedia as a free web host. And if that's how you describe yourself, your license to use the English language is hereby revoked. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should have seen it before it was cleaned up. . . Rcawsey (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ANXeBusiness is not just an online company. They are a long standing provider of a private extranet that connects suppliers with auto manufacturers. The ANX network is a critical component of the North American automotive supply chain. ANXeBusiness has expanded into other SaaS areas, but their core business is noteworthy. --Gdmoore20247 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - the number of press releases churned out for this company is simply astounding. In weeding through the search results, I did find [4], [5], [6], [7] and some toehrs behind pay walls that appeared not to be just press releases. That's not a lot but enough for me to squeak by for notability.-- Whpq (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contribute to this discussion. First – I would like to disclose that while I have not contributed to the writing of this article, I am the CEO of ANXeBusiness. While I agree that I am not noteworthy (at least – I haven’t done much that is noteworthy since the birth of the web :-), I believe that ANXeBusiness is and would like to submit some facts for your consideration. I am a heavy user of Wikipedia – but I am not an editor. In fact this is my first direct contribution, so I apologize in advance for the mistakes that I will make. Please consider the following:

• The ANX Network is the original of several regional networks that were established in the late 1990s to facilitate electronic collaboration amongst automotive companies. It is unique in the fact that, unlike its counterparts ENX in Europe, JNX in Japan and KNX in Korea, it was privatized while their operation remains with the founding associations (EAI, JAMA and KAMA respectively).
• The ANX Network was established by the Automotive Industry Action Group *The AIAG which sold [8] the technology to SAIC. SAIC founded ANXeBusiness in April of 2000 (DUNS number: 135870785), Google Finance with the purpose of building the network community and ensuring its long-term viability by commercializing its operation.
• ANXeBusiness owns the US Patent 7072964 and is well known globally for its operation of the ANX Network. Secondary references include : ENX website reference, JAMA website reference, KAMA website reference, andAustralian AANX website reference.
• Several universities have performed research projects on private network exchanges and have used ANXeBusiness as a part f their study. Here are links to two of those studies: MIT, Syracuse and Lund University, Sweden.
• In October, 2006, ANXeBusiness was acquired by [[Wikipedia:One Equity Partners|One Equity Partners] in order to support ANXeBusiness’ continued growth into vertical markets other than automotive. Since that time, ANXeBusiness has completed a number of private company acquisitions. Because these mergers were private company transactions, the only source of information about the transactions is a party to the transaction. Some of these include: MEMA, Pacific Crest.
• ANXeBusiness has over 5,000 customers and is independently referenced on many of its business partner websites (supporting notability). at&t, Siemens, Dassault, Grid4
• While ANX is a private company, it is still the subject of some independent research and analyst publications. Some examples include: Alacra, AllBusiness, [9], [10], and [11].

I believe that ANXeBusiness is notable. It has existed for 9 years, is known internationally and supports about 100 employees in seven states. Rather than striking the article, I would appreciate guidance for a company that is a newbie to Wikipedia to establish information in a format that provides meaningful information to users like me. One of my favorite things about Wikipedia is that I always get an answer when I look something up. I also appreciate the veracity of that information. ANX would not expect less for any information about the company. Thanks, Rich --Rstanbaugh (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply - The key issue for this dicsussion is notability. Note that by notability, we are discussing how the article meets the Wikipedia guideline for notability as distinct from any dictionary definition. The nomination for deletion specifies that WP:CORP, the notability guidelines for corporations is not met. You should review them and put forth any information that would indicate the guidelines are met. Furthermore, there is a also the general notability guidelines which apply , well, generally. One of the key ways to demonstrate notability is to present significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Whpq; no matter how much business the company does and with whom, our standard is WP:N, and its measurement is via reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 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. WP:SNOW , May I suggest the nominator read the various policies and guidelines concerning deletion before nominating another article? yandman 21:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Texas[edit]

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

Completely pointless and redundant with categories Nerfari (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At the time of this nomination User:Nerfari had 30 edits.Smallman12q (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • and? Nerfari (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is that you need to have more knowledge of policy before you start trying to enforce it. That comes with experience editing and participating. The burden is on you as the nominator to give a valid reason to delete this article. Also, no matter what reason you give, somebody is going to disagree with you, and you should not take it personally. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - "Completely pointless" is not a valid argument for deletion. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "serves no purpose"? Nerfari (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how about you come up with an actual reason for keeping it? What is it for? Nerfari (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Serves no purpose" is still a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please provide a sufficient argument as to why you feel the article should be deleted, and then I'll bother to expound upon my rationale. Also see Category:Lists of cities in the United States by state—if you want this one deleted, you'd have to get rid of the whole lot, otherwise there would be a significant gap in coverage. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look I have no personal feeling of dislike towards this list, I just don't see why you need to have it. It requires maintainance and it doesn't do anything. Nerfari (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, "doesn't do anything" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please see Wikipedia's deletion policy. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Invalid nomination reason.Smallman12q (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you afraid of here? Nerfari (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe just one person could assume a little faith here and tell me what it's here for. If I'm wrong I'll withdraw but if you are going to try and bulldoze me instead of persuading me... Nerfari (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Being redundnant to a category is not a reason for deletion, and in my view, nominator hasn't provided any convincing reason that it should be deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As far as I know, we have something like this for every state. They do serve a purpose, and I agree with all of the above that there is no objective reason to delete this. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under criteria A1. Publisher? Author? Not enough context to identify subject. I suspect fanfiction, rather than hoax.

Halo: the spartans renegade[edit]

Halo: the spartans renegade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google search did not yield this title, likely a WP:HOAX, WP:CRYSTAL at best. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this kind of rubbish gives AfD a bad name. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like a hoax, no evidence of existence. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax bordering on total nonsense LetsdrinkTea 23:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax, if it was real it would of made big news in the games industry.Gilagod101 (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 06:45, 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. Remember that AfD is not a vote. Based on the balance of this discussion, with the relative strength of the presented arguments, the appeal to our policy of WP:NOT#NEWS appears stronger that to our inclusion guidelines Fritzpoll (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube cat abuse incident[edit]

YouTube cat abuse incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see any claim to notability in this article. 14-year old does something v.stupid is not notable. Illegal act posted to youtube, ditto. Perp arrested as a result of youtube video, ditto. Incident used as space-filler to sell advertising in dead-tree publications, based on same AP news release, ditto. Combination of same, ditto. See also WP:NOT#NEWS which states "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". Exactly what is the historical notability of this 14-year old's error? Tagishsimon (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I'm tempted to say keep merely because it's the first time 4chan users have done something good... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment They've been good at least once before - Pflugerville, Texas#Pflugerville High School terrorist threat --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I think it's actually more notable for the actions of Anonymous (group) than the videos or the abusers themselves. Nobody's going to remember the name of the perps or the fact that it was on YouTube, but as another form of hacktivism (akin to the Wang Jue kitten crushing incident and the fallout) it's notable.--Piepie (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Some of this should be moved into the main 4chan article. Themfromspace (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This incident made international news (was reported in papers from Ireland, the UK, France, Russia, and Australia at least) and seems to have gotten a great deal of publicity. It meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR because it is well-sourced and describes what is already said elsewhere in reliable references. *** Crotalus *** 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My initial thought was delete, but this article has multiple international RS and seems to satisfy our criteria. Could do with expansion, but there are plenty of sources. Verbal chat 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Themfromspace. The real subject of this article is the kid, and I see this as a WP:BLP1E issue. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep. As much as it pains me to say it, this meets WP:N and WP:V. Should this be notable? Not by a long shot. However, there are enough sources that meet WP:RS to get it through WP:N. Firestorm ^Talk 20:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if this article IS kept, I strongly recommend we make certain the alleged perpetrator's identity is kept out of the article permanently on BLP grounds. Exxolon (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that point I disagree with you, but it is an issue to be addressed at the article's talk page or BLP/N, not here. Joe 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The mass propagation of the video and the fashion in which the video was analyzed toward the identification of an alleged perpetrator make this a remarkable case, more notable than a usual news event otherwise of this sort, toward which see the broad and non-trivial coverage in international publications the incident has received; even under the most restrictive interpretation of NOTNEWS, then, and surely under the construction of NOTNEWS for which a consensus exists, this merits encyclopedic treatment. Joe 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Wow, it survived a whole five hours before going up for deletion. Sarcasm aside, its received enough coverage in reliable sources that notability is not an issue. Its written based on the incident, not the person (who's name probably hasn't even been released), so there's no BLP1E issue involved either. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their name HAS been released. I've already had to redact it from the article and a WP:AN post. Exxolon (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you and others make the mistake of confusing multiple RS with notability. They are not the same thing. Notability asks for "historical notability" for news stories. This is far from the first youtube posting which has led to a perp being identified. It has no historical notability whatsoever, just none whatsoever. Multiple RS simply means that multiple newspapers thought is was a colourful enough story to run: god help us if tabloid preferences become our guide. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the first and formost indicator of notability is multiple independent sources. Much like Paris Hilton, this is incredibly stupid and if it weren't for the press coverage, nobody would care. But also like Hilton, there is press coverage. From all over, not just local. That makes it notable enough to cover here. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Violates WP:BLP and is stuff that's more suitable for Wikinews.--Sloane (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cat break 1[edit]

• Keep Does not violate BLP since the person's name isn't even mentioned (unless of course you are talking about the cat); this incident has caused international outrage and has received much media coverage LetsdrinkTea 21:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason it doesn't mention the name is I removed it from the article. It's certainly a potential BLP problem. Exxolon (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Russia Today, The Sun, The Irish Times, The Daily Telegraph. This is no Boxxy, these are solid non blog sources. Meets WP:N by a longshot. --Zaiger _talkplx 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also here is a blog report from Harvard law just for fun http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/zeroday/2009/02/16/internet-mob-justice-tracks-down-cat-abuser/--Zaiger _talkplx 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Multiple reliable sources is only one aspect of the establishment of notability; this doesn't meet the rest of them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate how? --Zaiger _talkplx 20:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge into another article like Anonymous_(group)#Internet_vigilantism_reports. However, it's distinct from the Chris Forcand, Hal Turner and Chanology 'raids' since it wasn't initially planned or done for the lulz. It was a genuine knee-jerk reaction by 4chan upon discovery of Kenny Glenn's YouTube videos. It's already generated a fair amount of old media coverage and it will probably get more notable as it goes to trial. This blog from Harvard talks about this as an example of "Internet mob justice". Also I'm surprised this doesn't have an article http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Chinese_bloggers_pressure_leads_to_kitten_killer_giveup --Piepie (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a news story, not an historic case. It may be that the story reflects modern society or says something about what people do with you-tube or how you-tube is used to solve crimes. But wait until someone writes a book about those subjects and decides to incorporate this story to illustrate their thesis. From an ethical perspective, it is wrong to give further publicity to juvenile delinquents who break the law in order to gain publicitity for themselves. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The first half of your remark is fine, but we don't delete pages just because we don't like the people they are about. Plenty of horrible people are notable enough for an article, and plenty of wonderful people aren't. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't mean don't write about someone because we don't like them, just don't create articles about nasty people just because they made EyeWitness news in Buffalo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 06:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cat break 2[edit]

• Delete transient 4chan meme, WP:BLP minefield. Might just belong at Wikinews if anyone still cares. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments of Crotalus, and the comment above I do not find to be helpful.--HootlePooch (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Abuse happens all the time. Here today, gone tomorrow. Also, as mentioned above, this is a BLP minefield. KnightLago (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - nobody's gonna care about this a decade, if not sooner, from now. There is also a story about a man from toledo who kidnapped a woman and forced her to wear a diaper as he read the bible to her. Is this deserving of an article too? (I can already imagine the "wikibureaucratic" name now: "Toledo diaper kidnapping incident".) Anyhow, what about Stuart Slann [12] (Stuart Slann facebook hoax)? that made headlines too, does it deserve an article as well? If so, I vote for an article for every 4chan meme ever. --Philip Laurence (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the question of the title of this article, which to the uninitiated might seem as if YouTube are the feline abusers. Kevin (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS—Kww(talk) 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, especially ludicrously ephemeral news such as this. Forget next decade: no-one will care about this next month. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been argued that WP:NOTNEWS provides a rationale to delete this article. That policy states that "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"; this is clearly not such a topic. It stresses that articles on individuals notable for one event are to be avoided; that is precisely what this article does, in lieu of an article on the perpetrator(s). The "think of the children" argument that the article is "a WP:BLP minefield" is plainly not a reason to delete it, for if all such articles were worthy of deletion, we would deprive our readers of articles on Rihanna, Child suicide bombers in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Family of Sarah Palin and so on. Let's be very clear on this point: Notability is not subjective. The Irish Times and The Telegraph are prominent broadsheet newspapers, and without doubt reliable sources independent of this topic. The coverage of this event in the two articles is not trivial, and unambiguously fulfills the significance criterion. In short, this topic clearly meets the encyclopaedia's threshold for inclusion, the general notability guideline. This discussion has thus far provided exceptionally poor rationales as to why this point ought to be ignored. Skomorokh 09:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have Harvard Law and several other reliable sources covering the incident. Of course BLP is an issue. We should make every effort to not ruin the kid's life because of one mistake, but it's doable to navigate the so-called BLP minefield. If it turns out this is later forgotten, we can always delete it then. If it turns out we can't navigate the minefield effectlive, ditto. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seems to be a consensus to keep such articles with much 3rd party mention, even if the issue may well be forgotten in a decade or so (or very much sooner). There was recently a snowfall in the UK which hit Wiki's front page. If Wiki is a repository of the world's knowledge, it could also be an archive of such events, even if there might be some issues with ethnocentrism. I would say keep as per WP:NOTPAPER Power.corrupts (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cat break 3[edit]

• Keep per notability asserted and shown. Then discuss on talk page the possibility of merging this content to abuse sections or either 4chan or Youtube as more viable search terms. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously per Not news Eusebeus (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the notnews/meme/etc arguments. This became an issue only because a bunch of teenagers at 4chan decided to take revenge over it (as a cat person, I was rooting for them, but that's besides the point), and it's the only reason this article exists. Thousands of animals are abused every day, and many of those occurrences are also brought to the attention of the authorities and the perpetrators punished in some way. Yet we don't have articles about those. As a standalone event outside of the intertubes angle, it's completely non-notable at best. And it didn't even turn into a notable meme that I can see. §FreeRangeFrog 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Guy and others. We're not a news site or dumping ground for 4chan crap. Notability is not temporary, and this is just another flash in the pan. Move on. GlassCobra 20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Guy. This is so transient (who remembers the Dog crap girl?), clearly not encyclopedic. If people are still talking about it in a year, maybe there's a point. THF (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, we've got an article on Dog poop girl. As for who remembers her... you clearly do, and now I know about her, too. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that was a bad example because Daniel Solove wrote a book where that incident played a big part, which is why it was on my mind, but that's what made that notable (though I see the book isn't cited, but the blog post is). Still, I believe in WP:NOT#NEWS, even if AfD generally doesn't. I can see discussion of the incident in Internet vigilantism, so it's not like I'm for purging the content; I just don't believe in having all the parallel articles with duplicate content that we have. THF (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - News story. We are an encyclopedia. — R² 00:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into Internet vigilantism. - Per WP:BLP, we've got to "get it right", and the article will need to be watched closely for violations. (Yes, both articles are now on my watchlist.) Still, it meets the criteria, and the arguments for deleting seem to me to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

  Whether or not we like it, this is an event that is shaping and defining how we relate to the Internet in the 21st century, partly because of what happened, and partly because it's getting so much attention. A comparable event in a year won't get the same media attention, and would likely not meet our notability standards. For now, this is what it looks like when new cultural ground is broken. Freaky, huh? I don't remember anything in my childhood comparable to "U.S. cat abuser punished by the internet".

  Whenever the histories of the Internet are written, and this event is put into a historical context, then we'll deal with it in those terms, but until then, I think it passes muster. What I don't understand it what would make a kid want to do that to a cat. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Guy, Realist2. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Several extremely good secondary sources establish notability. We know that wikipedians are generally biased against 4chan and related trolling sites. Other "newsy" articles with such quality sources would never get deleted. A little less hipocrisy and a little more NPOV please. AfD hero (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above is a completely unacceptable accusation for which I've taken the writer to task elsewhere. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You personally may or may not be biased, but it is a fact that wikipedians on the whole tend to have a systematic bias against 4chan and related sites. I'm just bringing up the elephant in the room... AfD hero (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep . Frankly the abuse itself is NOT notable. YouTube probably has hundreds of animal abuse videos, I really don't see the point in this. however, 4chan trolls' admittedly respectable response really began to push this event into being notable. yes, it's sensational, silly, and needlessly immature--but it's a popular event, stealing coverage from notable sources. reluctant keep... Mikey9090 (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it made international news. Glad they tracked down and arrested the scoundrel. Dream Focus 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP and protect from deletion again. Ikip (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And how is that done? I'm not aware of any process that permanently, or even temporarily, protects an article from deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not every incident of animal abuse reported in the media deserves an article, maybe transwiki to wikinews since wikipedia is not news.Troyster87 (talk) 08:02, 2 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 delete. Xclamation point 06:11, 2 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmers[edit]

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

As with list of lawyers, this should be deleted per WP:SALAT which reads "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories." Benefix (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LC items 3, 6, 7, and 11. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This list is eight years old and predates the category system. In those eight years, the only that that has happened was the addition of people and the addition of Sections per alphabet letter. This would work better as a category (if it hasn't been done already) and this page deleted. Also per WP:SALAT. Tavix (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obsolete list of people that doesn't provide anything a category wouldn't LetsdrinkTea 23:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The brief summary of the notable work performed by the programmer in most of the entries makes this a more useful navigational aid than a category. Also, categories cannot contain redlinks, so the information we have on (for example) Paul Abrahams would be lost if this list were deleted. While it is a broad topic, I don't think it's too broad to include. JulesH (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list is still a manageable size and by including redlinks it provides something categories can't'. It also gives brief definitions of what they did, which cats can't do either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, adds value over a category. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lists are not superseded by categories - see WP:CLS. Also this list seems quite good already. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per established policy about lists and categories:

Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia.

— WP:CLS

The deletion of "Lists of lawyers" was a bad precedent, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all of the above cogent "keep" arguments. DHowell (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above cogent "keep" arguments. Lentower (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom is misreading WP:SALAT: this is broken up by alphabetical order, which classifies as category as per the use in WP:SALAT. The list should perhaps be reworked to have specific breakdowns, but most notable programmers are generally not classifiable in this fashion, with multiple claims to notability. --Cerejota (talk) 09:59, 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 delete. WP:OR, WP:Synthesis (I'd have loved to be able to mention WP:not a crystal ball...) yandman 08:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Septennial cycle[edit]

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

I've been looking and can't find sufficient evidence of notability for me to think that this article isn't mainly OR - I should be able to easily find good references to a septenennial cycle in classical Western astrology if it were notable. dougweller (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although the German astrologer cited has a webpage that asserts that the classic 7 planets link each have their own year (Saturn in 2007, Jupiter in 2008, Mars in 2009, etc.), I don't see anything else that suggest that this is anything other than an idea from Angela Preis-Hartmann. Odd as it is to talk about something that is not accepted theory in astrology, this doesn't seem to be something that other astrologers talk about. Mandsford (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Look at this: http://www.austriancoins.com/MedalsCalendarI.html http://www.austriancoins.com/MedalsCalendarII.html http://www.austriancoins.com/MedalsCalendarIII.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Systemizer (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of links pertaining to the septennial cycle:
http://www.astrouranus.ch/marsja09.shtml
http://www.kathshop.de/benno/katalog/pdf/019783.pdf
http://www.jutta-briegel.de/pageff728f0008.html
http://www.bluewin.ch/de/index.php/374,13673/JUPITER_regiert_das_JAHR_2008/
http://www.hillac.de/zei_b282.htm
http://www.moderne-astrologie-heute.de/inc/aid13.pdf
http://viversum.freenet.de/freenet/magazin/artikel_2009_3_1_1.html --Systemizer (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentAh, but you say 'pertaining'. That's your opinion and is original research. dougweller (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The one in English doesn't use the phrase 'septennial cycle' and I checked two of the German ones, septennial in German is septennial or as an adjective something like siebenjahrig, I could find neither. But why all the German links? If this is a common concept in astrology, good English language ones would be easy to find. dougweller (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The matter is that metaphysics is alien to the English-speaking civilisation. Most of European metaphysics (philosophy, astrology) is of German origin. The difference between the Germans and the English is akin to the difference between the ancient Greeks and Romans. We owe our culture to the Greeks. Systemizer (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Our article on Metaphysics has plenty of English language authors, perhaps you don't know about them. Metaphysics is clearly not 'alien to the English-speaking civilization' (and I had to study it at Yale in the early 60s). dougweller (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is well established that any language is OK for references, and if the concept is notable in Germany, it is notable for our purposes. The encyclopedia articles are written in English, but the scope is world-wide. DGG (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is whether any of the references establish the notability of a concept called the 'Septennial cycle'. I couldn't find it, and the word 'septennial' is apparently the same in both languages (and I looked for variants, but we actually need 'Septennial cycle'. Otherwise what we have is OR. dougweller (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article creator is known for original research, and recreating deleted pages, see their talk page. [13] Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More original research from article creator. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There doesn't seem to be an Afd tag on the actual article. Edward321 (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThanks, weird, must have been a Twinkle problem. Or it happened when there was a bug in the software, which there was a few days ago. Fixed now. dougweller (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete = I find dougweller's research into the German-language articles persuasive. (I find Systemizer's comments about Germany being the wellspring of Western mysticism to be mind-bogglingly weird...he needs to read up on the mysticism movements in England in the Victorian era before he continues in this vein.) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Strong Delete = All of Systemizers arguments have been demolished either by others or by himself. There is no notability to this concept, it is original research and synthesis, and the core idea apparently doesn't exist outside of a couple of fringe astrology believers. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Metaphysics is not mysticism. Consult a dictionary. Systemizer (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astrology is mysticism, consult your nearest astronomer. :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Astrology is not necessarily mysticism. Mysticism implies lack of INTERNAL logical coherence. --Systemizer (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I...I don't even know where to start with this one, it's so strange and unrelated to reality in any way. I think I'm done talking to you about this topic. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is exactly what I meant by saying that metaphysics is alien to the English-speaking civilisation. A high level of latent inhibition makes people incapable of understanding metaphysics. "The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." (Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1837) Systemizer (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um....no. For all you know, my native language is German, or Gaelic, or Swahili. Also, for all you know, I'm not from Emerson's country. So please back off. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is getting silly. If English is a language incapable of expressing metaphysics then clearly the article can not be written in English to a satisfactory quality and must be deleted anyway. The argument is not only foolish, it is self defeating for the purposes it is being invoked. That said, it did encourage me to go back and check that there was a German Wikipedia article on this subject and, guess what, there isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree with you. I think Systemizer is systematically demolishing his own arguments. Upgrading my opinion to strong delete. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Article creator needs to more thoroughly understand our policies (especially WP:NOR) before wasting more time creating articles like this. --John (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article does not contain original research. Be more specific in your claims. Just show me the suspected element of OR, and I will show you the source.--Systemizer (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've explained it above, I can't do more and am going to have to get away from my PC - real life demands call! dougweller (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) Read the top of this page and especially the photograph of the astrological calendar (Aus einem astrologischen Kalender von 1935) Der astrologische Jahresregent. On the photo of the calendar, it is said that "Die Planeten-periode ist 7-jahrig." The German language does not have the word "septennial." "7-jahrig" is translated as "septennial": http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-german/septennial I provided new external links on the article page. The "7-jahrig" cycle is extensively used by European astrologers. Systemizer (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per dougweller. Original research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Strong delete. The author has participated in this discussion and failed to produce any evidence that this subject is a coherent subject at all, is notable or even exists under this article's name. Given the vast volumes written in various languages on the subject of astrology, you would not expect any problem finding references for any notable astrological concept. In fact, the normal problem is the reverse, i.e. that it is too easy to find one or two references for any old nonsense which an individual astrologer made up. I have tried Googling and it seems that the most notable use of the term is a Jewish one unconnected to astrology. There are many genuine seven year cycles and all this article does is cobble a few of them together with original research. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google has retrieved:

• 2370 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Mars (2009): http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22mars-jahr%22&btnG=Search and 1360 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Jupiter (2008): http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22jupiter-jahr%22&btnG=Search
• 502 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of the Moon: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22mond-jahr%22+reihe&btnG=Search
• 676 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Mercury: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22merkur-jahr%22&btnG=Search
• 235 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Venus: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22venus-jahr%22&btnG=Search
• 643 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Saturn: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22saturn-jahr%22&btnG=Search
  Here is another page describing the cycle: http://www.sarastro.at/html/jahresregent.html Systemizer (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It doesn't matter if the various 7 year cycles you talk about in the article are notable. Trying to bolt them together into a wider concept is still original research (see wp:syn) unless you can show a reference that already links them all into the concept you are writing about. Quality not quantity is what we need. One unimpeachably good source would do it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Hebrew calendar was similar to the Babylonian calendar—in both calendars, the year began in March and the Jews adopted the Babylonian month names:

In the Bible, months are usually numbered rather than named; but occasionally Phoenician names are used in the books written before the Exile and the modern names, which come from the Babylonian calendar, in those written after it. The first month is normally that beginning at the spring equinox, called Abib in Exodus and Nisan in Nehemiah; this was also Babylonian usage. (The Oxford Companion to the Year)

I have shown that the year 2000 is a year of Saturn both in the Jewish and the Chaldean septennial cycles. By the way, don't you know that the Jews were in captivity in Chaldea? Systemizer (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Jewish Septennial cycle is related to a pattern of Torah readings. It has nothing to do with astrology. The calendar similarity is irrelevant. It is a different concept to the one you are trying to synthesise. Not everything that takes seven years is related to everything else that takes seven years. You have given us a hell of a lot of links to look at and in return I would like you to look at just one short one which highlights the intrinsic absurdity of linking the unconnected far better than I can. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Torah is a Semitic book. No wonder that the Chaldean cycle is identic to the septennial cycle of Torah. Christ's native tongue was Aramaean—the language of Chaldea. I have added new text to the article explaining it. Systemizer (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: OK. Thanks for that. You have demonstrated that you are simply making it up as you go along without any recourse to published sources. I am upgrading my vote to "strong delete" accordingly. I am not going to keep repeating myself but I will just point this out one more time: The Jewish seven year cycle is not related to astrology at all. It is related to two 3.5 year periods over which the Torah is read, as one of your own external links makes very clear [14]. Furthermore, while some Jews do follow astrology, it has no basis in any mainstream form of Judaism. Attempting to link a Jewish concept to an unrelated astrological concept may even be considered offensive. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The primary source of the Septennial Torah cycle:

Vayikra (Leviticus) 25:1 And HaShem spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto HaShem. 3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;

4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for HaShem: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.[15] The 3.5 year periods are of secondary importance and were invented much later.
Yesterday, I came across a book drawing a direct parallel between the Jewish Sabbatical year and the year of Saturn of the Babylonian seven-year cycle (in Babylon, it was considered to be an "evil year.")
I have deleted the text about Shmita. Systemizer (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment = After the interchange above, Systemizer changed the sentence "The septennial cycle of the Ptolemaic astrology ascends to the ancient Semitic astrological tradition" to "The septennial cycle of the Ptolemaic astrology ascends to the Chaldean astrological tradition". It strikes me that this change is an effective proof that this article is either original research or made up entirely, since the Chaldeans were Babylonians, and not a Semitic people. In other words, the sentence has changed entirely to mean something in direct contradiction to its previous meaning. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldea#The_People Flopsy, what are you doing here? --Systemizer (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See that citation needed tag? It means something. If the words mean the same thing, why did you change them immediately after Daniel's argument above? Doing that just makes it clear you're making this up as you go along. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the fall of Assyria, Babylonia enjoyed 70 years of independence. The Chaldeans, a little-known Semitic people, became the ruling class of the New Babylonian, or Chaldean, Empire. The most famous of their kings was Nebuchadnezzar II, who rebuilt Babylon. They made great progress in science—particularly astronomy and mathematics—and strongly influenced the Greeks. [16] Systemizer (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are missing the point. You are defending your synthesis without acknowledging that Wikipedia simply is not an appropriate platform for it, even if it is defensible as a theory. If I had invented some wizzo new astrological concept I would either look to publish it in astrological circles, and have it accepted there, or just get a premium rate phone number and charge people money to hear it. I would not be looking to insert it into an encyclopaedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) I have deleted what you objected to. 2) Google has retrieved thousands of webpages on the astrological septennial cycle (links above). How can you call it wizzo new? Frankly, I am amazed at the degree of the cultural isolation between the German- and English-speaking countries. Systemizer (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • All you need to do is show us one really good reliable source that demonstrates that the complete synthesis you are writing about already exists and is notable. It can be in German if you like. My obvious ignorance, stupidity and blindness to metaphysical subtlety should not be an obstacle. If the theory is exists and is notable then you should be able to demonstrate this to somebody with no prior knowledge. At the moment, we do not have verifiability, which is an absolute requirement for an article to be kept. But let me ask this before I go, if this stuff is so mainstream in German speaking countries, why does the German Wikipedia have nothing on it? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • See the word Jahresregent here: http://www.zeno.org/Pierer-1857/K/pierer-1857-008-0719 Here is another printed book: Die göttliche Wissenschaft By Reinhold Reinerth An article from Brockhaus: http://www.brockhaus.de/wissen/jahresregent Astrological glossary (see JAHRESHERRSCHER) Systemizer (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while the article is a mess, and parts smell like WP:OR, it appears to be notable on the basis of the citations. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is pretty notable—Google has retrieved 41700 webpages on septennial year ruler (Jahresregent) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=jahresregent&start=0&sa=N Systemizer (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Bearian. I would be interested to know how closely you compared the subjects referenced (I actually think there are several unrelated ones) with the purported subject of the article, which is a nonsensical original synthesis of them. I do not believe that the references and external links support the thrust of the article as it is currently written. I would be interested to know which of elements of these subjects you think are notable and which are not. I am not completely adverse to the possibility that something can be rescued from this mess if it was written in a neutral manner, by an experienced editor, following the sources. That said, I remain to be convinced, and I think that deletion and starting from scratch would be the best approach if there is a future for this subject at all. I am not even convinced that the article is correctly named at the moment. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Daniel, I do not know exactly what you mean by nonsensical synthesis—you are so inarticulate (virtually dumb) in your speech... I mentioned two interesting coincidences (with Shmita and the bone cell replacement timing), without any original analysis. Just food for the reader's thought. Systemizer (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Original research and Synthesis. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:37, 3 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost My Way[edit]

Lost My Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not provide sufficient support for why the song is notable outside of it's existence and a subjective interpretation of the lyrics. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm really getting tired of people thinking that songs written by notable people are notable in and of themselves. Its really getting to be like WP:POKEMON all over again.
• Delete: non-notable non-charting song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:46, 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 00:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is JMS ? Why JMS ?[edit]

1. What is JMS ? Why JMS ? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A subjective essay, whose topic is already adequately described at Java Message Service. ←Spidern→ 18:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete exam answer —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per nom. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with 2. What are JMS Models ? too. ∗ \ / (⁂) 20:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both of these. Subjective essays do not belong in an encyclopaedia. Firestorm ^Talk 20:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as OR. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete As copyvio of http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jcf/g22.3033/handouts/g22_3033_h87.htm LetsdrinkTea 23:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see the copyvio; maybe a couple of sentences. I'm deleting the speedy tag, and deleting the two offending sentences. But to be safe, I'm adding the ((close paraphrase)) tag and giving the link on the talk page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't see the copyvio either -- Dank55 barely beat me to declining the speedy.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I just chose a random sentence and googled it and got an exact match so I tagged it as Copyvio LetsdrinkTea 01:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Why are we even discussing this? This is not an encyclopaedia article and already covered per nom. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, it has been brought to AFD, so we have to discuss it. However, it could probably not have survived a prod. Nonetheless, it has been brought here for a deletion discussion. Firestorm ^Talk 04:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject already adequately covered elsewhere. -0 Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This reads like someone's homework. Wikipedia is not for posting essays. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Languid Delete. Meh. – 74  23:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed. Nobody, including the nominator, is arguing for deletion. So there's no deletion discussion to be had. WilyD 17:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plant (botanical)[edit]

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

Should be a redirect to the primary article: plant (which is a well developed full article). This is a discussion of a narrow taxonomic debate that would best be incorporated (if cleaned up) into the taxonomy or plant articles. No compelling reason why there should be an article on plants, talking about botanical plants, and then plants (botanical) talking about taxonomy. Shadowjams (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you read the comments on the talk pages for Plant (botanical) and the plant talk page linked from there? To paraphrase it: the experts need a page that details the history and changes as to what is called a plant and into what the subcategories they are divided. The average user needs a page that tells him something about the green growing stuff outdoors and in the flower pot. Both needs can not be met on one page because the organization of information required is different and it would also blow the page out of proportion. The needs of the "ordinary Jo" are not really met by the current plant page because it tries to straddle the gap. Give the new page time to grow and prune it only if it fails to bear fruit. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Props on the plant puns (seriously), but I think the "what is called a plant" issue is a taxonomic one that certainly should be referenced in the plant article, but dealt with elsewhere. My nom is a merge by another name (can't pun quite as well). Shadowjams (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.--Sloane (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (carefully) per nom. No need for a fork - this content should be explained at plant. If ever there is a need to split off the taxonomy information, it should have a better name than plant (botanical). Not all information is sourced, either, and a bit misleading (e.g. the section on the "Two Kingdom System" says Linnaeus classified Archaea in with plants, which isn't exactly accurate since Archaea weren't known until much later, the study of microorganisms only being about 30 years old at the time Linnaeus worked). --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per Rkitko. The main plant article needs to be improved, perhaps forking some of the detailed taxonomic information into an appropriate daughter article. Guettarda (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (carefully) per Rkitko. Hesperian 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (extremely carefully). As I've already said on Talk:Plant, we should be very careful about the wholesale adoption of a new (i.e. last decade) taxonomic scheme. History shows that brave new schemes are often supplanted, so with something new, it should be clearly identified as such and probably shouldn't supplant more accepted (if probably out-of-date) schemes such as that favoured under, say, Five Kingdoms. Do we have a house taxonomist who can comment? --PLUMBAGO 08:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Either merge or keep under a different name. The content needs work, but it should not simply be lost be turning it into a redirect. I see nothing wrong in principle in having a spin-off article on the concept of the plant kingdom, and the different systems proposed through the ages. If there is more than can comfortably fit within Plant, then it seems a good idea to have this fork - but plant (botanical) is not the right name. Try Plant classification? Probably not - that implies classification below the level of the kingdom. Or maybe (and I think this is probably the best solution) merge this content into Plant taxonomy, which already exists as a separate article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This is a merge discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 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 keep. Reliable sources are given SilkTork *^YES! 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Writings in SF[edit]

New Writings in SF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Remove. Fails WP:BK. There are no reliable sources. The series existed, but - apart from a few SF fan sites that mention it - I couldn't find anyone who had written about it. I recall the series - I read some of the issues, and may even have a copy in the loft somewhere - but it doesn't appear to be notable. SilkTork *^YES! 18:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is the possibility of redirecting to John Carnell and making a section in that article about the series. Even though there is little information on which to base a section, some details could be given about dates and contributors. SilkTork *^YES! 18:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Your assessment of the article as possessing no reliable sources is premature, since the existing article was simply a placeholder to host the discussion page on the merger proposal. As for your going ahead and merging in the articles under discussion, that too was premature, since the discussion was ongoing. In light of the fact that the issue is unresolved I am not going to second-guess your doing so at this point, though the reasonable thing to do would have been to maintain the status quo until a definite conclusion had been reached. Kindly attempt to restrain yourself from over-precipitate activity in the future, out of courtesy to other contributors, if nothing else.

As I have noted in the previous discussion, defending the notability of the series is comparatively simple, even if defending the individual volumes might be less so. Carnell was a vital figure in the development of British science fiction in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in fostering new talent. All of the journals and series he edited (including New Writings in SF) served that end. Brian W. Aldiss's article on Carnell in the 2004 edition of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is a good place to go for documentation on this point. Carnell's aims for the series are spelled out pretty boldly (and ambitiously) in the first volume. The names of the series's contributors, many of whom already were or or afterwards became important in the science fiction field, serves as good corroboration. These can easily be verified in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. As for your statement that you couldn't find anyone who had written about it, well, you couldn't have looked very hard. Try looking into some of the standard references -- the Clute encyclopedia, for one. Reference does not begin and end with the internet.

Naturally, I oppose the proposal to delete the article on New Writings in SF. The previous proposal in regard to the individual volumes was arguable. The present proposal is wholly without merit. BPK (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "No reliable sources"? Please take another look. The stub was created 2 days ago. In the last 36 hours, new authors, including me, have made many edits, expanding and cleaning up the article considerably. Though I have used some, there are additional references at GoogleBooks that haven't been incorporated into the article yet. There are also reviews which haven't been incorporated into the article yet: [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. Rosiestep (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rosiestep. More sourcse that could be useful: [21] [22]. This series is part of the history of SF, and really should not be deleted. There will be plenty more sources in fanzines and other critical works that are not available online. JulesH (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Seed A Companion to Science Fiction Blackwell 2005 pp69-70. JulesH (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Keep. This was began without regard for the purpose of the stub, to host discussion on the merits of moving/merging several articles into one article. As BPK (rightly) has no intention of fleshing out an article that is going to be deleted, I have no intention of writing a fully cited article only to have the move/merge discussion turn cold. This was a noble, if overzealous, attempt to clean-up, but you must understand - we're using that article. Padillah (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obvious keep per User:BPK2. There are hundreds of good sources for this - what was the nominator thinking...? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What the nominator was doing was the merges as requested, and as I was doing them I became aware that the external links given were not appropriate as they a) gave no information other than what was already in the article and b) were not from a reliable source (www.isfdb.org). I thought, as I was doing the merge, that I would add some cites. My GoogleBooks search ([23]) was flawed in that I didn't use inverted commas so the return was simply pages of the book rather than on the book. So my thinking, at the time, was that there were directory listings of the series which proved it existed, but I saw nothing to assert the notability. I read BPK2's comments with interest, and also the GoogleBooks links provided by Colonel Warden using inverted commas which show comments about the series, including this one which gives the notability by saying this was "the longest-running original anthology series". I also note the article now has reliable sources. As such I'll close this as a Wikipedia:Speedy keep under Reason 1. SilkTork *^YES! 19:45, 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 Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering)[edit]

Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:POVFORK from Stratospheric sulfur aerosols. Atmoz (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I'm ambivalent about whether or not it's POV, but it looks like there's plenty of content, and content that's unique to the sub-topic and not appropriate in the stratospheric aerosols topic. If after removing POV statements it is as short as the part in the parent, then by all means delete. If the page does go away, a merge into Geoengineering might make more sense than a merge back into stratospheric aerosols, since the focus is on the geoengineering aspects, not necessarily the sulphur mechanism. Shadowjams (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Although for me it's about having the info, not so much where it is. Stratospheric sulfur aerosols is currently seen as a leading geoengineering technique, if not the leading technique. Therefore, it definitely needs comprehensive treatment somewhere. Mr.C. kept deleting content from Stratospheric sulfur aerosols, so Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering) seemed a good idea. I'd also be (just about) happy with a merge into Stratospheric sulfur aerosols buy ONLY if the comprehensive info was not affected. If it went into geoengineering I think it would be too long an article, and not sufficiently focussed. I accept that having loads of geoengineering stuff in Stratospheric sulfur aerosols would clutter it, so a keep seems the best idea.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [William M. Connolley] kept deleting content from Stratospheric sulfur aerosols, so Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering) seemed a good idea. Case = rested. A textbook case of a POV fork. Thank you for admitting so. -Atmoz (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing to do with POV, any more than effects of global warming is POVfork from global warming. There's nothing POV about it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to goeengineering.--Sloane (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete yet more noise from AJL; we really don't need a stream of badly written, inaccurate unreferenced articles. Its going to die eventually, must its death be prolonged and painful? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a vote for a cleanup, not a deletion.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - I'm a total outsider on this topic. Please, let's not make this personal. Shadowjams (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now cleaned up a bit:

• improved the section layout
• added sources where ^{[citation needed]} tags were found
• re-edited arguable POV material

It still needs expanded citations and doi-sourced refs, which I'll crack on with now.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given the recent edits, this article has plenty of potential LetsdrinkTea 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. EagleFan (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Stratospheric sulfur aerosols. When someone repeatedly removes information from an article. The correct course of action is to discuss it, seek wider input or try dispute resolution. Dropping the text in a separate article to avoid the confrontation is the textbook definition of POV fork. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text was removed for IRRELEVANCE, not for POVfork. It's a different subject, much like chess and Gary KasparovAndrewjlockley (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The possible use of these aerosols in Arctic geoengineering needs to be mentioned, and a clear distinction made between such Solar radiation management (SRM) techniques for cooling and techniques to reduce GHGs in the atmosphere. This article has plenty of potential, I agree. John Nissen (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep — Article got lots of reliable references — Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 20:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is a natural summary/spinoff from the main article, dealing with a specific aspect of use for geoengineering. The articles are both sufficiently long and well-sourced, so I see no problem with the current organization. – 74  23:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Referenced article which needs tweaking, which has been coming already.SriMesh | talk 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open tasks

Please amend/addAndrewjlockley (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace any non-notable links with sci. papers etc.
• Check references cited support claims in article
• Convert bare urls to cite-webs
• ???Create disambiguation page for sulphate aerosols, stratospheric sulphur aerosols and stratospheric sulphur aerosols (geoengineering)
• Keep the revised article, as it does seem to be NPOV, thus not a POVFORK anymore. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:29, 3 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 delete. Xclamation point 06:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary OS[edit]

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

Hasn't received any media coverage, distro still under construction. Non-notable. —Magic.Wiki (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is other software on Wikipedia that has not been released, and you can get it just not in a single installer. --Spazturtle (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied at Talk:Elementary OS. —Magic.Wiki (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, so a good article can't be made. Maybe after it's released and generates buzz it can be recreated. Ancemy (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep www.distrowatch.com have added it to the list of distros to be added --Spazturtle (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• They add every distro that announces itself (read their FAQ), but all distributions aren't notable. What I fail to find are reviews of this distribution in notable magazines and websites, not surprising as the distro is under construction. —Magic.Wiki (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to list of ubuntu-based distros - Improve the article or it will get deleted. Give me a reason why this is notable in any way (I don't care about wikilaw, just explain why this is not "just another distro") and I might change my vote. SF007 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This distro uses a new custom kernal and nautilus navigation system, version 2.0 will have a custom GUI as well. Oh and distros like 'Super' Ubuntu are also "just another distro" --Spazturtle (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not said this was "just another distro", I just asked for a reason to keep. I don't like to delete articles, so I voted neutral. I would like to vote "weak keep", but the article is very small and the distro does not have much references. Anyway, I changed my vote to redirect, because I don't like deletions. Regarding Super Ubuntu, probably it is not much better than Ubuntu, I agree, but at least is a bit more useful than "pure Ubuntu". In case you did not noticed, I am not against the article (or the distro), au contraire... SF007 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable and I found no third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. --Chealer (talk) 16:43, 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/ closed by nominator. I didn't think that a state legislator qualified as first level sub-national office (for some reason I was only equating Governor to that.... silly me) and as the article originally stood I didn't see extra anything qualifying as notable. Great job on the rewrite and the added sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Krieger[edit]

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

NN state rep, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Google comes up with nothing except his contact info on the PA house of representatives website. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In my opinion he seems to meet WP:POLITICIAN, specifically as a member of the Pennsylvania legislature he holds a first-level sub-national political office and so meets the first criteria - "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges". Most memebrs of the PA house of representatives have articles and although this article is only a stub that's no reason to delete. Dpmuk (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect he meets WP:POLITICIAN, but this substub is so devoid of information that it is more a directory entry than a biography. Does anyone know when or where he was born, which party he's in? Well our article doesn't help them either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just did a major update so it now provides a lot more information (although, annoyingly, not where and when he was born as I ahven't found this yet). Dpmuk (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the rewrite. Still would like to know when & where he was born, but alas the information is probably a state secret. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as state level politician. Well done to Dpmuk for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:10, 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 02:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Johnson[edit]

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

concern = Gsearch not turning up notability for this Hayden Johnson. No references in article to back up weak claims of meeting WP:Notability. Autobiography. Prod removed by User:Haydenj without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Claims would be very weak assertions of notability even if substantiated. - Vianello (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnotable; per WP:BLP WP:BIO WP:SPS LetsdrinkTea 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN and also appears to be COI 7triton7 (talk) 06:32, 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 speedy delete. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Xiao-Min[edit]

Feng Xiao-Min (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreadable mess of an article. A google search turns up nothing on Feng except for a print website selling one of his or her prints. If some of the events and exhibitions he took part in could be verified he or she would easily pass WP:N, but as of right now this fails WP:V. I'm going to work on cleaning this article up for readability issues, wondering if anyone who reads Chinese could find out if there are any sources on Feng. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is a repost with none of the original concerns being addressed. Speedy Delete Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bruce Marshall. yandman 08:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Children of This Earth[edit]

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

I can't find any notability. Google News has one result, a passing mention, and Google search isn't much better. The article's content borders on CSD A1, as well. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Marshall is a historically significant and prolific writer (more than 40 books). He is quite popular among Catholic readers. Wikipedia prides itself on being a repository of information, and my article, though very short, does give potential readers a sketch of what this particular book is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corsair1944 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Probably notable but needs expansion. If not possible then it should be merged into Bruce Marshall. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the article on him, especially since it contains only one line of text. For most authors, not all their work will be equally notable. Looking at his books in worldCat, I see that, after, after 60 years or more, The world, the flesh, and Father Smith, still has 940 library holdings; Vespers in Vienna" 694; 'White rabbit 689; This has 6. I have not looked for contemporary reviews, butt rhis does not seem like one of his major works. DGG (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crappy one line article on non notable book, can be merged to the author's page. LetsdrinkTea 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This clearly needs to be written better. If the author is notable, it should be possible to find reviews of his works through Catholic magazines and such. So I'm willing to posit sources exist, just not online. Ancemy (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per DGG. To author: we try to be comprehensive in our coverage, but that doesn't mean giving every single book its own article. We can cover small pieces of info in a larger article on a related topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - book is notable enough for its own article. Wordssuch (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge If more info comes up, it can always be recreated. This as it stands isn't worth the space. Peridon (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to author's article without prejudice. Allow recreation if/when more sources are made available toward the book's individual notability. It was reviewed by New York Times[24] on May 11, 1930, but I do not have access to such an old review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per DGG et al. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per DGG and others above. Non-notable on its own. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:26, 3 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pierwsze strony gazet[edit]

Pierwsze strony gazet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Totally unsourced and no indication of notability for this single. There's a whole bunch of them if someone wants to deal with the rest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unable to find sources to support a claim to notability. [25], but then perhaps that's because I don't speak Polish. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pierwsze strony gazet means first page of the (news)papers, so those google news hits above have nothing to do with the song. With limited Polish it is hard to determine notability, but no apparent claims for chart success here. Parslad (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save the Netbooks[edit]

Save the Netbooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a blog, run by the creator of this article, that just started less than a week ago, to campaign for a particular position. Major COI problems, no real notability for the website (as compared to the topic in general, which probably belongs under netbook only), and the sources used for the article fail reliable sources (a bunch of blogs, pres release by the site) and do not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people to campaign on their own behalf. Maybe if this site sticks around for a while and makes a real difference somewhere and gets mainstream news coverage for it separate from the topic as covered on netbook, then it can have its own article. Right now it's just someone abusing Wikipedia as a press release for his cause. DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, it does seem like an obvious attempt to use WP as a propaganda tool and a clear case of COI. If that's sufficient grounds for deletion, then so be it. Letdorf (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Letdorf to clarify? You agree with deletion or you agree with samj that he is not in violation?

Sorry, I'm indicating agreement with DreamGuy. Letdorf (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Letdorf is one of the two (british) editors who have been vigorously defending this (british) company and whose recent edits outed me personally, then 2 minutes later discredited both article and author by affixing the COI cleanup template. Their haste to contribute to this discussion is likely due to this unrelated dispute, but in any case their reasoning is not "sufficient grounds for deletion". Also, prior to the blocking of User:842U the only commentary permitted in the netbook article on the subject was unjustified claims of genericide. -- samj _in^out 17:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't really get excited about this trademark controversy either way, but I don't like WP being used as a soapbox. I also like to see WP articles report the facts of the matter in as objective a way as possible, as, of course, they should. These are my only interests in this and other related articles. There was no "outing" involved, as you freely admitted your COI on the talk page. Letdorf (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Strong Keep or Merge (from author) As I said to the brits and socks on the talk page:

1. The site clearly meets WP:WEB (see here, here and here). There's some more for good measure, here, here in japanese, here in spanish, again in turkish, one from the philippines, even some negative press. Even so, the register, ars technica, techdirt and jkontherun are all non-trivial and independent so any two of them should suffice for WP:WEB.
2. The article itself is unbiased, the subject need not be. Nobody has identified areas where the article fails to have a NPOV, least of all influenced by COI.

Remember, COI is no justification for deletion. -- samj _in^out 16:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The brits and the socks"?? Which do you think I am? And, yes, COI is a reason for deletion -- often it's a reason for speedy deletion. I took this to AFD instead, which is more than it deserves. DreamGuy (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, just realised that the article was brutally savaged by DreamGuy before listing it - even I'd vote against it now. -- samj _in^out 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by "brutally savaged" you mean "edited to remove clear violations of policy." But, yeah, that's right, I remember, you don't care about our policies, you just want free advertising. DreamGuy (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless a lot of modification is made. I have meda no secret for my dislike of this article's subject matter. The author has gone as far as to claim I'm doing something wrong by requesting edits, accusing me of sock puppetism, rather than naivity and inexperiance with Wikipedia. Reasoning with him seems to boil down to this general template: "I'm right, you're wrong, there is no discussion to be had - thank you SamJ". However, samj will claim that I'm a sock puppet and that I'm also biased. I deny both charges. This needs to be decided by someone with a completely objective position. Memsom (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC) I would like to retire from this discussion. My vote is now null and should not be counted Memsom (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum if we want to be more exact with the problems this article has to overcome:

• Slander_and_libel defamation "the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image."

• The author is a strong Partisan of the movement. He is responsible for the manifesto against the subject, with an aim to defame/cause damage to their legal right to defend a trademark they have held for around 10 years.

• All attempts to call for moderation have been quickly quashed by the author.

• Most edits from people external to this article have been removed quickly. The only way I have menaged to pus a less biased agenda is through expressing my concerns and getting the author to make changes. These have been painful to extract and have often been less that was requested.

Memsom (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Memsom is the other of the two (british) editors who have been vigorously defending this (british) company, both here and outside, openly admitting to having a conflict of interest. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- samj _in^out 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retort Sam, I believe I have told you from the beginning that I disliked the attitude of your campaign - to quote myself from your first link:

I could go and change the Wikipedia article, but I'd rather someone with no attachment to the other camp has a hand in it. I call b***s**t on you, because you are perverting the Wikipedia article and making a mockery of the Wikipedia neutral stance.

I don't know the other people who have commented on this thread, I can't speak for anyone but myself. I ended up here due to the following chain of events:

• News story on OSNews
• Investigate web site. Follow links.
• Discover Wikipedia article through links. Look at SamJ's "articles edited". Notice Netbooks included
• Realise the link between SamJ and Sam Johnson, owner of the Save the Netbooks site.
• Have dialog through Twitter - SamJ abruptly blocks my account - apparently discourse is not allowed?
• Make an edit to the page - SamJ undoes it.
• Start dialogue on the talkback - whilst also attempting to raise notice of issues this page has.
• SamJ places a COI notice on my talkback. I return the COI, adding an extra item to the list with appropriate counter links.
• SamJ accuses me of being a Sock Puppet.
• More discourse, SamJ makes minor edits to this page... more discourse, more minor changes.
• Another appeal, SamJ seems to begin to listen, certainly reacts with less venom.
• Boom, all heck breaks loose here.

Along the way, I note more than one person has attempted to request moderation - each time SamJ has removed the tag almost immediately, IMHO making a mockery of Wikipedia.

SamJ has run such a campaign perviously, which claims to have stripped Dell of the "Cloud" trademark. I haven't looked in to the details, but I see an alarming trend in the subject matter of the articles this user is creating and the practices he is advocating. Should we be encouraging hate mongering and cyber vigilanteism? If the word Psion was replaced with a racial group and the message one of a hate campaign against that group, would the article have lasted this long? A quantum leap in logic, I know, but I've pondered this fact over the last day.

Being British is irrelevant. Psion is no longer a British company. It would be like me calling Vauxhall a British company, even though they're owned and run by GM/Opel. Memsom (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly why your vote should not be counted: WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- samj _in^out 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel the need to turn this in to school boy "you're it", "no you're it with bags on", "no you're creamos and no returns"? I voted for deletion *or major revision*. You're not exactly going out of your way to to build bridges here. Memsom (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to go out of my way to "build bridges" - it's just an article and the content will end up in the Netbook article where it will get more eyeballs anyway. What I don't appreciate is the repressing of a message just because people don't like its contents. There is no doubt whatsoever that the subject is notable and nobody has been able to identify specific issues with the article outside of blanket assertions. -- samj _in^out 23:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you give off a persona of being abrasive, people (other people, I'm past caring and in to the "defend my position from the accusations" point) will react badly. If I felt like you weren't attacking me and slinging mud in my direction, I would stop commenting. Memsom (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

random section break 1[edit]

• Delete - The COI issues here are too large to overlook. If history shows that this was a notable campaign, restore later.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment COI is not, never has been and (with any luck) never will be a valid reason for an AfD vote. The purpose of these debates is to establish whether there is enough verifiable evidence of notability to satisfy WP:WEB and as you can see from the many examples above there clearly is. -- samj _in^out 17:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete' - Clear COI interest, also as a current civil legal dispute any posting would need to be clearly NPOV - this isn't eg links that went the 1998 grant of trademark evidence were deleted. Also, the main author and defensive editor doesn't want to take points about the law, which in an article about a tm dispute might be helpful. Also, I didn't think being British prevented you commenting on an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.27.50 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does when the subject is a british company, in much the same way as it would be were the subject an olympic athlete. It's not really all that surprising then that your edit comes from a british university. -- samj _in^out 17:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. A users opinions count the same no matter what country they are from. Their comments would count the same even whether they are from the UK, US, Japan, Sudan, or anywhere else. Samj, you might try backing off from spreading false info just to save this advertisement for your campaign. TJ Spyke 18:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This IP address, 131.111.27.50, is registered to University of Cambridge and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution." -- samj _in^out 18:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that (I checked the WHOIS). My comment was that their opinion would mean the same even if it was from a US or Australian editor (or any other country). Being from the UK doesn't change anything. If the user was from the company that owns the trademark, that would be different. TJ Spyke 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a handful of editors, socks and IPs work together to delete an article about a british company it definitely matters (WP:COI, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, etc.). The only issue this IP editor identified was a specific ref about 1 trademark in 1 country that was replaced with "International trademarks were issued" so as to be less precise but more accurate. -- samj _in^out 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accusing the opposing individuals of conspiracy is a big claim. Can you back that up? Can you prove that (a) we know each other (I don't know them, I can't speak for them knowing each other) (b)this is an organized attack (it is not, I have clearly explained how I got here which you have also documented when attacking me.) (c) being British is a crime in this instance? Psion ceased trading in the UK some time ago, as far as I'm aware. If not, the Canadian wing of the company now runs the shop and they are a Canadian registered company as far as I am aware. Memsom (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clear COI (and the articles creater/campaign organizer keeps removing the COI tag). The article also appears to be blatant advertisement to try and get people to support the campaing (which IS grounds for deletion), the majority of the page just states the goals of the campaign. A brief mention in the Netbook article is sufficiant. TJ Spyke 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again COI has no place in these debates (except perhaps to justify some problem with the content) and the COI tag is a cleanup tag, not a tool to permanently brand content you don't like. Also, on what basis do you claim that it is "blatant advertising", bearing in mind that the CSD G11 policy is "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" and this content is clearly encyclopedic. You misread the intentions of the article but we perhaps didn't do enough to assert notability. In any case it's good to see someone outside of the UK contributing to the debate. -- samj _in^out 18:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no third-party reliable sources I can see. And overt promotional use of Wikipedia. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except here, here and here. Oh that's right, they were stripped from the article before it was listed. How convenient. Also bear in mind that the policy on blatant advertising (CSD G7) states that "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." -- samj _in^out 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, lt us examine that claim:

Criteria Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6] The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.).\

Which justifies the actions of DreamGuy in about 60-80% of the removals as bare minimum.

I do agree this is not grounds for deletion, but it is definitely not unjustified or vandalism. Memsom (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if those particular ones were there, I'd still say the same. I'll view it as notable when it gets into newspapers. BTW, you have a conflict of interest: per WP:COI, finding fault with the basis of every comment here doesn't strike me within the spirit of "avoid, or exercise great caution when ... Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that sources had to have dead tree versions to be considered reliable - this requirement is conspicuously absent from the policies which call for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". It also conflicts with Wikipedia's own debates on the reliability of Ars Technica and (less so) The Register:

• The Register: Independent news, views, opinions and reviews on the latest in the IT industry. Offices in London, Edinburgh, San Francisco and Mountain View.

the impression I've always had was that the Register is extreme in views and quite often sensationalist. Very tabloid in reporting and quick to judge. Memsom (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ars Technica: specializes in original news and reviews, analysis of technology trends, and expert advice on topics ranging from the most fundamental aspects ...

The reaction on Ars[26] to the Save the netbook article is fairly telling : most people seem pretty unmoved.

Here it is again with sources but in any case I'm kind of over arguing for a cause that has no other purpose than to protect consumer choice. -- samj _in^out 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You campaign is about your personal feelings towards this subject. It's not about protecting "consumer choice", because the average consumer does not know what the difference between a PDA, UMPC, Nettop, Laptop, Notebook, Webbook, Netbook or Googlewhack is. No one knows because it is a neologism, it isn't a universal term yet, especially outside of English speaking countries and has been dropped by many of the manufacturers whilst the Netbook trademark case is pending.The small laptops that are popular currently withh still exist no matter what they are called. Price points sell them, not buzzwords. Memsom (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A neologism with almost forty million hits? "Save the Netbooks" has almost twenty thousand alone and yet people are still arguing for its deletion. -- samj _in^out 22:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems not everyone like what you are doing and questions your motives, and not every hit is even for your site. Google spiders pages, so if you have many pages repeating the same announcement and adding no extra content, it is possible you could reach that many hits. The term "save the netbooks" isn't exactly a unique moniker. Memsom (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - COI, WP:NOTWEBHOST etc. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok so WP:COI definitely has no place here, but how does WP:NOTWEBHOST apply? -- samj _in^out 22:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up, if necessary. Meets notability under WP:WEB[27] and COI is not grounds for deletion, though the editor's attitude is rather counterproductive. I see a lot of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT on this page. THF (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't voting IDONTLIKEIT, I was voting "It's a week old, can we really tell yet if it's notable?" As far as I'm concerned, if Psion wanted to start enforcing their trademark, they should have done it quite a while ago.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment was "The COI issues here are too large to overlook.", yet neither COI nor event duration are valid reason to delete. If anything COI edits could be a *huge* source of energy, provided they are monitored for WP:NPOV and not vigorously stamped out as seen above - the article is factual bordering on cold and exactly zero instances of non-NPOV have been specifically identified (likely because there are none). It has almost twenty thousand search hits and it needs only TWO to satisfy WP:WEB -- samj _in^out 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its pretty obvious that this is a politically motivated bad faith nomination. The people here screaming delete seem to be spouting off as many WP policies as they can and they need to go learn some new words. This article clearly meets WP:N and WP:V; and any COI or POV material can be dealt with by means other than a deletion. LetsdrinkTea 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry for the violation of AGF. I do admit that this article has many serious issues, however since they can be fixed they do not warrant deletion of the article. I have found over 100k+ hits on google on this subject and there is no doubt in my mind that there are enough sources that meet WP:RS to get it through WP:N and WP:V. That said, my !vote to Keep this article stands. LetsdrinkTea 01:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would far rather this article was cleaned up by an impartial moderator and and locked from editing. Seems like the best course of action, given that neither the creator nor any contributers here (I include myself) are impartial enough to do that now. It's quite clear that SamJ is not going to be able to make edits without flack and more accusations flying about the place. Voice of reason must be enforced. Deletion is extreme, but allowing open editing is going invite trouble till the matter is resolved in court/USPTO hearing. Memsom (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letsdrinktea claims "Its pretty obvious that this is a politically motivated bad faith nomination" -- Hello, what? There's no bad faith involved, and I'm not political in the slightest regarding this topic. Hell, I probably agree with the "political" position of the site the article is about on the issue. The question is whether we should give an encyclopedia article to a site less than a week old being used as advertising, and, no, no we can't. The attack on me was a pretty obvious violation of WP:AGF. You can't just assert it clearly meets WP:N and WP:V when it most certainly doesn't, not by a long shot. DreamGuy (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Except for those pesky twenty thousand search hits. COI doesn't matter. Duration doesn't matter. And you're one to talk about WP:AGF when your hardly WP:CIVIL nomination states that "it's just someone abusing Wikipedia as a press release for his cause". Last I checked it wasn't even in the top 10 hits so hardly great advertising - it'd be better off in the netbook article (which incidentally is where it'll end up if this is deleted). -- samj _in^out 01:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add in the hits for "Save the netbook" and other variants and you have well over 100k LetsdrinkTea 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To be more quantitative, this "blatant advertising" has been responsible for exactly 1.39% of our referrals according to analytics. -- samj _in^out 01:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.". -- samj _in^out 00:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The article's campaigning tone starts with its title. Since this is just an ephemeral news item, we don't need to work to keep this per WP:NOTNEWS. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:SOAP, WP:COI, and notability concerns. The term is clearly notable, but the movement doesn't seem to be at this point. I might support a highly abridged merge to the main article. Dayewalker (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• On further review Merge to Netbook. As the page is, it's a content-fork, and the website doesn't have notability beyond the controversy over the trademark. Once the self-citing is cut, there isn't a lot there. But NB that WP:COI is not a reason for deletion. THF (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Issue is better, and more neutrally, covered at Netbook#Trademarks. Most of the text in this article is promotional copy for the "save the netbooks" campaign.--Father Goose (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that when this article was created that section looked like this and it wasn't until User:842U was blocked that we were able to fix it. In fact without 842U's tendentious editing and constantly sweeping the issue under the carpet the campaign may never have even kicked off. Anyway although I maintain that the article meets WP:WEB the important parts have already been merged with netbook anyway. -- samj _in^out 04:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that revision of that section was non-NPOV? Looks a bit discursive, but otherwise fairly neutral to me. Letdorf (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

random section break 2[edit]

• Delete. Leaving out the COI issue, as I stated on the talk page the sources used in the article do not satisfy notability requirements. They are mostly trivial sources, or press releases. None of the stated links fulfill the reliable, secondary sources requirement. A Google search is not a clear justification for keeping a page in Wikipedia. A site getting 20,000 or 30,000 page hits does not make it notable either. Those numbers are irrelevant. I would agree with the comment that the subject can be covered very well under the Netbook article, and this page comes off as propaganda for the website it covers. As for valid reasons to delete the article, see WP:Notability in addition to WP:WEB as all articles have to meet the general Notability requirements. To quote from that page: "'Presumed' means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not." Going by What Wikipedia Is Not: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Based on the evidence from these guidelines, this article should be deleted. Iarann (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Brand-new crusade. Wikipedia exists to dicument notability, not create it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As per his comments above, the author of the article appears to have gone ahead and merged his content into the Netbook page here [28]. Dayewalker (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion should continue since the consensus currently seems to be to delete rather than merge. Consideration should also be given to blocking samj since he is flouting our policies and processes in pursuit of his non-encyclopedic campaign. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that the references were already there before this article was even listed. -- samj _in^out 13:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet notable. This can go as a subsection of netbook, if at all. DS (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I have seen comments and discussion in the online gadget communities regarding the use of the term (such as on engadget), I don't believe that a personal website designed to provide an apparently one-sided view of the topic is worthy of an encyclopaedia article. I've not seen the petition mentioned in any article written on any gadget blog that I've visited. It also doesn't make it apparent that the blog, twitter and facebook accounts are all run by the same person too. I also think the image on the same page [29] should also be considered a candidate for deletion - why is the word "netbook" printed three times even remotely notable? I've not seen it used on the site, nor has it been adopted by Gizmodo, Engadget or any other blog reporting on the issue. Howie ☎ 16:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Howard, there's a ref right next to it explaining the origin. http://gizmodo.com/5117806/psion-orders-websites-to-stop-using-the-term-netbook

Ah, thank you for pointing that out - I totally failed to see that (and Gizmodo's search function wasn't being too helpful at the time!). Still, the image isn't used on the website the wikipedia article is about at this time. Howie ☎ 18:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, insufficient evidence of notability. There are lots of sources thoroughly documenting the dispute between Dell and Psion and the netbooks trademark issue: the dispute, the lawsuit, and responses to it are certainly appropriate for coverage in Wikipedia, and may even be appropriate for coverage in its own article. However, virtually nothing has been said about the "Save the Netbooks" campaign or website in reliable sources: it has been mentioned, but that's about it -- certainly not enough for the basis of an entire article. The level of sourcing demonstrated seems enough to me that we can mention the Save the Networks campaign in relation to the trademark dispute. but we can't sustain an article on it. The current article is unacceptable per WP:SOAP and WP:POVFORK. This dispute is already covered at Psion and possibly other places; this framing of it gives vastly unequal weight to those with a particular opinion, and serves to promote the campaign rather than report on it. Mangojuice^talk 20:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOAP and insufficient notability. Mangojuice puts it better than I could. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for not having meeting the notability guidelines and for its promotional intent. Themfromspace (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Update Save the Netbooks has since broken the 200 member mark, has well over 100,000 google hits, around 5,000 blog hits and a dozen or so active news hits (two in the last hour). Notability is rapidly rising (at least in part due to today's scoop that Psion counter-sued Intel on Friday) and will likely continue to do so over the course of the lawsuits (which will take at least six months so it's not news). It was written in good faith with a view to being neutral, has since been critically reviewed and despite appearances is not for promotion (rather to objectively track the campaign - indeed only ~1% of visitors come from Wikipedia according to web stats and that includes the netbook article). In any case both WP:COI and WP:SOAP specifically allow for encyclopedic articles which do not violate other policies. The main opponent has withdrawn his vote and this vote at least (and perhaps this one) appear to be reactions to debates elsewhere (coming within a minute or two of this edit); even the nominator exhibited a certain amount of bad faith in this edit summary. I've stayed out of the discussion recently but given so much has changed since the nomination felt that an update was necessary. In summary, Wikipedia would be better off with this article than without it and while the reaction to the explicitly disclosed conflict of interest has been spectacular enough to prompt the writing of this essay, please try to be objective in your assessment. -- samj _in^out 20:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you use an essay you yourself wrote to try to support a COI free-advertising article about your own website? You're certainly ballsy in your violations of policy. DreamGuy (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote myself from above, going by What Wikipedia Is Not: " Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Just because there is progress in the Netbook trademark case, does not add notability to Save the Netbooks. Save the Netbooks involvement in the affair is minor at best, and since the event itself does not have it's own article, this site is just not notable. The website being referenced in passing in those articles has no affect on your notability. To quote from WP:WEB where it discusses what is not notable: "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address" No where, under any of the Notability guidelines I have seen, do member numbers or Google hits factor in. Iarann (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The citations listed in the references section is more than enough proof of notability. Just because something is new does not mean it's not notable. LK (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be snowed by the number of them. Most of those are from the site itself, and many others refer to the facts of the dispute without mentioning Save the Netbooks at all, while others mention it but don't describe the website or the campaign, but only the trademark issue. Mangojuice^talk 21:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the keep vote came before the update (which itself being prepared at the time in response to the last delete vote). -- samj _in^out 22:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Plenty of evidence that this dispute exists, however I don't see anything to convice me that this website is notable. --Leivick (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Slashdot currently features the site on its front page and the servers are taking a hammering. It has half a dozen direct references and/or links in the article, dedicated coverage elsewhere and is the only complete coverage of the situation available. -- samj _in^out 16:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean a heck of a lot more if you hadn't been the one to submit the story to /., Sam.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Misread attribution. Sorry. But, you still were the original submitter.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all the uprated articles are talking about netbooks in general, _not_ your site. FAIL.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot posts are deemed notable by both other users and editors before hitting the front page and it was actually submitted by kdawson (who based it on an old post of ours from yesterday). Denying slashdotting is a signal/source of notability is a stretch when we have a dedicated slashdotted template. -- samj _in^out 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again you miss the point. The event is notable, Slashdot linking to you is not. You have not been slashdotted, that would mean the post is about your site. It is not, the post is about Intel being countersued by Psion. What this would get you is mentioned in a Wikipedia article about the trademark dispute, not your own article. Read WP:WEB about what trivial coverage is. Iarann (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so basically the summary of this 50k+ of debate is that if we change the title of the article you'll all drop it? The coverage was previously forced out of the netbook article and has popped up in (at least) the following locations where it is clearly unmaintainable:

• Netbook (which is already starting to be overrun and we're just getting started)
• Netbook trademark (G7'd after 842U was banned and the content was restored)
• Save the Netbooks
• Psion
• Psion Teklogix
• Psion netBook

What a complete and utter waste of time. -- samj _in^out 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what changing the article's name has to do with the fact that the website and campaign do not appear to be notable with regards to this topic. The trademark dispute and the type of computers this relates to are both notable, but your campaign website is more like a lobbyist group that has had - so far - little impact on both the parties involved in the dispute nor the general gadget community. If the website becomes notable - due to it's lobbying actually being seen to have a considerable effect on the trademark dispute - then I think it would be deemed worthy of inclusion. Until then, I would still say that it doesn't require an entry on Wikipedia. Howie ☎ 21:16, 2 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.

As Mr.Lenahan suggests, let's go through the criteria of WP:MUSIC. I think we can all agree that the ones we're focusing on are 1, 9 and 12 (10 refers to it being a theme or recurring music for a show). For 9, Duffbeerforme is right in saying it would be a bit of a stretch to say that AcaTunes and the like are "major music competitions". The fact that they may be "major for that type of music" (i.e. American College A Capella), as Hobit points out, isn't a listed criterion. As for 1, there weren't multiple non-trivial published works (the only newspaper given is the student paper, and the Today appearance wasn't a documentary). Finally, we come to the Today show appearance (PKT). Criterion 12 has the advantage of being pretty clear. The author makes a reasonable argument for using WP:ORG instead. Unfortunately, there are no "reliable published works". A one-off appearance as a "guest band", be it on a major show, is not a published work (a TV documentary about the band would be). If anyone can find an article in a major publication about this group (maybe someone at the New York Times watched the Today Show?), I (or any other admin) will recreate this without hesitation. yandman 08:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last Call (a cappella)[edit]

Last Call (a cappella) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources found, despite searching. Seems like an entirely unnotable singing group. Dendlai (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am unable to find sources to verify notability. Their albums seem to be self-published-- I couldn't find them on Amazon.com. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Response: This article was finally restored after being deleted for awhile, and I will be trying to update it over the next few days, especially adding references and other useful links and information. Like most a cappella groups, we do not sell on Amazon.com, though should probably consider doing so (good idea) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastCallACappella (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn group, fails WP:BAND or WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no reliable independent sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no sources that demonstrate notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Page has been update with more information and more sources, and at current appears to satisfy requirements for a band, in that it has won or placed in a major music competition. Remember this is an a cappella group, not strictly a band, so most of the requirements for a group to be a 'band' on wikipedia are not obtainable by any a cappella group since they are on an entirely different music circuit. In fact, most college a cappella groups are closer to 'student groups' than 'bands', and I feel they should be treated as such. So yes, if you compare Last Call to professional bands, Last Call is lacking on notability, but within a cappella I'd hardly say Last Call's achievements certainly do warrant them their own page. Therefore, I have removed Last Call as a musical artist and hope to keep them as a student a cappella group. Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastCallACappella (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- With the re-write, they certainly seem to meet notability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article now shows sourcing and notability. No policy-based reason left to delete as far as I can see. Hobit (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the awards or competitions are shown to be major. Independent coverage is on the trivial side. One tv appearance is not enough for me. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'd say 2nd place in the largest contest of its type is major, and I personally would say coverage on well-known nationally broadcast TV show isn't trivial. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Duffbeerforme. At some universities, Cornell being one of them, a cappella groups are far from rare, and my inclination is to presume such groups non-notable unless there is clear evidence otherwise. (As an aside, the article's statement "Last Call was officially formed in 1993 by few Cornell men who felt Cornell needed a new kind of a cappella group, one that loved to entertain." sounds like an insult to the other a cappella groups at Cornell, implying that the others either don't entertain or do so only grudgingly.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Youtubes of their Today show appearance clinches it for me - national exposure. PKT(alk) 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete student club at a single school, passes neither WP:ORG nor WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 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.