< 8 February	10 February >

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

The result was Keep. Kotniski (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brenden Foster[edit]

3rd nomination after all the silliness goes away. This page has had no edits since last nomination. It's had 20 views per day. This is a pointless, pointless vanity article. --Goalsleft2342 (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note ~~Page~~ AfD created 16 March by Goalsleft2342 (talk · contribs), never listed at AfD. Listed now ~~-- no vote.~~ This is not a vote, just a procedural comment. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC) (refactored by SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No! don't delete it! What harm is it doing? Let Brendan's amazing legacy live on here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.204.5 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he is an inspiration and hope for people who are lost.. shows that humanity still can produce pure and truthful souls.. 20 views only cos the majority of the population are lost in the media hype.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.22.74 (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because you think its silly, is not a valid reason to delete it, nor a lack of page views. Also, how do you know how many views it gets a day? Where is that kept track at? This got news coverage in ABC news, so it meets the notability requirements. There is no possible reason to delete it. Dream Focus 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dead children don't write "vanity articles" as the morally challenged nominator claims. Several third-party news sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom's reasoning ("pointless", etc.) has nothing to do with our notability guidelines which this person passes. What is silly is this being nominated in the "places and transportation" category.--Oakshade (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we sure this isn't a BLP1E? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--he's not a living person, the "L" in BLP. There is news coverage, though it is repetitive. I edited the article some, but I have no opinion on deletion--I think an encyclopedia should aspire higher than including this type of article, but I think the WP guidelines call for inclusion, given the independent coverage. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIm sorry to say this, but this kid aint notorious at all, the only thing he did was die of leukemia thats it, what can be so notorious about it? millions of people die of that everyday and wikipedia aint got articles for them--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When the nominator nominated this article they said "this pointless article needs to die". That is a clear indication of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and ignores the sources presented in the article and the ones existing that are not yet listed. The article is not just about a kid who died, but the effects his death had on a larger community. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close the debate? I always find it odd when one's very first contribution to Wikipedia is a visit to AfD [1], since most new editors learn about it "the hard way"; and I think it's odd that the nomination is written in such a way that very few people would want to be associated with the comments made. And what's this about a 3rd nomination? I don't see that a deletion tag was ever placed on the article before [2]. If there comes the time that this is renominated, I would be more in favor of merging the content to Northwest Harvest, the charity for whom Brenden raised the money; and if a "Brenden Foster Fund" is created or a "Brenden Foster Food Drive" becomes an annual event, then a separate article about the fundraiser would be appropriate. At the moment, I don't see anything that indicates that the food bank or the TV station have any intent of honoring Brenden Foster's wishes in a permanent way. Mandsford (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple independent sourcing showing influence beyond local area, and per IDONTLIKEIT nomination.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re closing -- looks to me like it should be treated as a relist on 3/31, even if there wasn't an edit explicitly stating that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, per Sam Korn's note above it was never listed before he did on the log for 4/1. It was an orphaned nomination that the usual bot didn't notice for some reason or another. The first listing of this discussion began at the time of Sam's edit above (22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)) GRBerry 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OIC. The syntax was a bit terse for me, that's why I missed it. Refactored for the benefit of the next user with !clue...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to be notable, and consensus says to keep. Malinaccier (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Edwards (archdeacon)[edit]

Delete. No assertion of notability MrShamrock (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. I think a fellow of a prominent Oxford college is a notable position; I'm conscious however that the sources we have are trivial and the article will never grow beyond its current state. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, though. JulesH (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Archdeacon seems to have been a notable position within the church during his lifetime. Edward321 (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:RS standards. There is no cause to delete it if it doesn't grow beyond its stubby state. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The positions held were much more notable then than they would be now. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator of article) - not only (as Edward321 and Johnbod say) were Archdeacons more prominent in those days, but this man has an entry in the national biographical dictionary for Wales, and so has been considered by others prominent enough in the history of his country to merit an entry. Bencherlite ^Talk 05:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be unimportant. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-cited stub. He was apparently notable in the past. The stub probably needs some cleanup, which I'll try as an easy rescue. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more to say about him than that he exists. An archdeacon is just two ranks above a regular priest and still several ranks short of bishop. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How many "regular priests" can be sourced 400 years later?? That this individual CAN as an Archdeacons says much for his historical notability. And religious hirearchy is a bit different now than it was 400 years ago. Notability is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added another ref, more data. There are enough RS's for a useful article. He is very hard to search on because of the 2 (near) contemporary also religious figures of the same name.John Z (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree that there's factual information in the article that has been adequately sourced. But it's all "he took this position on this date" sort of things. There's nothing in there to distinguish him from any other seventeenth-century churchman, nothing that we can point to as his contribution to the history of the time, no writings mentioned as having survived, no discussion of what influence he might have had on others in his time at Oxford, and in short, no notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike under WP:CSD#G3. Non-admin close. BryanG (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Walter Podcast[edit]

Delete hoax, and not something made up in school one day... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did laugh... Delete and I suppose probably a speedy - it might even be gone before I hit save) - , but I laughed FlowerpotmaN·(t)
Speedy delete - I think this is blatant enough to qualify under G3.--Kubigula (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 11:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Berling[edit]

Contested prod. Not a notable footballer. No appearances in any professional league. Drøbak Frogn is not professional football team. Rettetast (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails inclusion criteria as a footballer, but the aftermath of his retirement sparked significant media coverage. His case is still cited today, many years later. Keep unless someone can convince me otherwise. I referenced the article. Punkmorten (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmmm...interesting one. I agree with Punkmorten and feel it will probably continue to endure, probably being dragged up time and again as notable players retire and come out of the closet and declare the reason they never came out before was the belief it would destroy their career. Has independent coverage, interest and some claim to notability. Could do with a little copy-edit though. --ClubOranje^T 11:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're a bit close to a WP:BLP violation with what you're hinting at in your comment there.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse my ignorance...In what way?--ClubOranje^T 11:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how Oranje's comment contains "biographical material about a living person". Punkmorten (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - He appears to be specifically hinting that "former England centre backs" might need to "come out of the closet". It's entirely possible I was wrong when I first read that and assumed he had someone specific in mind, all I'm saying is be careful..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmmm. It was just a random statement of example really with no specific intent. If I had written it a few days earlier I may have used New Zealand strikers, not because I believe they would, simply because they were articles I was looking at. However, point taken and sanitised in the interest of harmony. --ClubOranje^T 23:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He may not pass the notability guidelines for his footballing career, the article and references provided prove he passes WP:N, as most of his notability comes from his post football life. Eastlygod (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to vote since I was the person who created this article. I did so to get get rid of the red links at List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople. I do admit that my knowledge of Norweigan football (soccer) is limited, but I thought he was a member of professional team for one year in Norway. The u-19 national team does not qualify as notability for an athlelete. This has been prodded for deletion twice and I thought I added references that satisfied the prodding. I was also trying to find some English articles about him to find out more about his career, but to no vaild. Yet, reading some of the above posts I'm guessing he is more notable for his post-career. The link that I posted that is in Norweigan I read via a Google translation. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Pinkkeith (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that he is notable in the fact that homophobia forced him to retire from a football career, and media attention shows that. Giant Snowman 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fail to see how this is wikipedia material. It sounds more like a news broadcast to me. Govvy (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to easily meet WP:GNG Nfitz (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable on his own terms, even if he falls short of usual notability standards. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems notable enough for a stub. Maybe in the future such things will not be notable, but they clearly were then. If there is such little information, maybe he could be included somewhere in a list rather thana standalone article, but i don't think the LGBT people list has room for such descriptions.Yobmod (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stewart, Photographer[edit]

~~Weak~~ delete. The article describes someone who is conceivably notable, but I can't find the sources to back up this unreferenced article, and the "personal website" described therein is a dead link, so I can't even go to non-independent sources to make a judgment call. That, and the misnamed article has been tagged since September 2007, but the SPA editor who created it never improved it, and no one else has, either. THF (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Images sans Frontières" appears to be a real agency but it's misspelled in the article, I can't find any page with both the correct spelling and Stewart's name, and the only pages with both the misspelled agency name and Stewart's name appear to be mirrors of this article. That makes me mistrust everything else here. I tried searching for one of his supposed exhibitions, "Revolting Britons", together with his name and again found only mirrors of this. Is this a hoax? Regardless, it fails verifiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i only checked the first couple of pages of search results, but only got mirrors too. If the publications exist, i cannot find them with this name. If creator really thinks he is notable, then userfy until good sources are found.Yobmod (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book Five thousand days: Press photography in a changing world is listed at Copac (also with the subtitle "The very best of press photography in a changing world"). But it's described as having "photographs by members of the British Press Photographers' Association". Members, plural. There's also an edition whose cover says 5000+ Days: Press photography in a changing world. A certain large online retailer of books advertises new copies at just $1 each; as I'm not in north America this would go up by over 1000%, but somebody there might consider a purchase. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, for $1 I would've done it, but it's actually $4.99 with shipping. However the same retailer permits one to "look inside" the book, and there is precisely one photo from Paul Stewart, on page 136. My delete !vote just got stronger.THF (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a British newspaper photographer called Paul Stewart, or perhaps there are more than one photographers so named. But nobody hereabouts has yet found enough to go on. Conceivably, a British newspaper photographer called Paul Stewart merits an article; if somebody later writes one that's well sourced, fine. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Deenoe 23:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Article has developed considerably since nomination. There is no clear consensus to delete current version. SilkTork *^YES! 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping controversies[edit]

Article that is not informative in nature, but argumentative, written only to give reason or build a thesis; lacks any supporting citations, and is only filled with questions and external links ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 22:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not quite agree that the article is not informative - it actually does refer to a new trend in the social studies of sciences which has been gaining momentum during the last 3-4 years, and is currently considered "cutting edge" in the field. I'll include more references and hope this will make it acceptable. --Verpar (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entry in its current form presents and informative overview of a new scientific trend. Useful links are made to various applications of this method so it will be very helpful to keep the entry for future reference. --Momuna (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This account has made little or no contribution outside this discussion.←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 22:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. While the topic may be worthy of an article, this text never gets around to telling us what it is even about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Smerdis that this is a poorly-written article. I note that one editor did a fix by paring down the flighty essay that was originally written, and I think it's great that there are sources added. Now, if someone can answer the question "What the hell are mapping controversies?" in plain English, it could probably be kept. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update So, thanks for the feedback. I've included a definition and a little explanation that should make the whole entry sounds more understandable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verpar (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A lot of cleanup has been done, so i think it is at an ok level for further improvment. A clearer lead paragraph would be very useful though - i have 3 degrees in science, and i cannot undertand it! It is the study of controversies within scinece? Like arguments about Global warming amoungst scientists?Yobmod (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept, and boy, right now is sure does make my brain hurt, it should probably be renamed to Controversy mapping, as this is a term used in at least one of the references and describes the subject in a much clearer fashion. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just read this article and I have no idea what a mapping controversy is. It sounds like it might be a useful addition to Wikipedia if explained. On the other hand, it might be just more post-modern, deconstructionist gobbledygook. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Keep The entry has improved a lot over the last few days and it's stating pretty clear what mapping controversies is. One shouldn't forget this is more or less a scientific term and the added explanation and references are helpful in case the reader likes to "dig" further into social sciences. --Momuna (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This account has made little or no contribution outside this discussion.←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. I consider myself an educated person, and I cannot understand, based on this article, what "mapping controversies" even are (or: is?). This makes any assessment of verifiability or notability rather difficult. Sandstein 08:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena In The UK[edit]

Given the existence of List of Internet phenomena and the fact that the internet, by its very nature, isn't affected by national boundaries, this seems unnecessary. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary fork that (no real content now) will inevitably duplicate the List of Internet phenomena list. Notably, that list is tagged for notability issues as well. If the parent is questionable, it questions the fork too (although I think the parent is notable). Shadowjams (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unnecessary fork. Tavix (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only entry on the list appears to be a link to information created by the article creator and appears to be a self promotion of some sort. Keith D (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all comments above. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single list of IP is one thing, but creating one for every country is simple not needed. Isn't the whole point about IP that they are internationally famous? I don't think anyone cares about their place of residence.Yobmod (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City. Not notable enough for individual article, although merits mentioning (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Sonics[edit]

The organization is not notable. It existed for a very brief period of time, did not achieve its objective, and is now disbanded. Only one other article links to this one, and that link was created by the same editor who created this article. Furthermore, that user's only edits are creating this page, editing this page, and adding the link to it. This page was proposed for deletion before, but the tag was removed by an IP address with only one edit. The edit summary given by that IP address for not deleting the page is incoherent. The group contains no noteworthy members, I don't think the group will have any kind of historical significance, not even a footnote Chicken Wing (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per comments above. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City. Org is important in that context but not notable enough to warrant its own article. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's a good point. As an alternative to deletion, I would also support merger if that becomes the consensus. As a stand-alone entry, however, I don't think the article could ever be more than what it is now, which is basically a stub. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral or Merge, the content should almost certainly be merged and the section on the effects on the community within the bigger article lengthened. I'm not sure if this article from ESPN does anything for notability for this org, but it should mention it if the group is notable. SMSpivey (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this organization still exists and meets WP:NOTE. While the article could use more sources, I've found that most people discussing articles for deletion recommend improving articles rather than deleting them as the preferable solution to this problem. --DerRichter (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per KuyaBriBri. Rlendog (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not really a merge but rather the conclusion that this "group" if it really is a group with membership should get some brief mention in the main article on the Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City. The "group" is not nearly notable as an organization holding one rally where Shawn Kemp couldn't even be bothered to show up. In the end I wouldn't really think that the main article should get more than a couple of lines about the popular support for the Sonics to remain in Seattle. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have "merged" the useful content from this article into the main article.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G5 (creation by banned user in violation of ban). The page was written by a sockpuppet of the banned user MarthaFiles and/or Fatim1 and therefore can be speedied according to Wikipedia policy. Khoi khoi 03:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The racism within the arabism ideology[edit]

Looks like an essay of some sort, not an encyclopedic article RT | Talk 22:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quite interesting, actually, but not encyclopedic and with no real potential to be so. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This was speedied a couple of days ago under a different title (see [3]). §FreeRangeFrog 22:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. Several articles in one – all of which seem to push non-NPOV through misquoting of sources. Nothing to salvage. 9Nak (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy g4, per FreeRangeFrog.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie gilder[edit]

Not sure about this one, which is why I decided to take it to the group at large for a vote. On the one hand, the subject appears to barely meet notability guidelines. On the other, another version of the page has been protected from recreation, and it seems like this was speedied before, but a while ago. I didn't want to speedy it, so here it is. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO and the single claim to notability is having appeared in a show of some sort, which would grant the notability if the article concentrated on that instead of his budding music career. A source with the Rock FM - Northern singer dreams of having his name in lights.. lead should be indication Wikipedia is being used to establish notability, not document it. §FreeRangeFrog 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per JamesBurns, nom. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Meets notability and RS (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evan siemann[edit]

Quite a few published papers, but I don't know if this counts as notibility. RT | Talk 21:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Notability for scholars cannot be gauged by the number of publications alone. The article does not make claims of notability beyond what could be considered "normal" credentials, no claim to whether or not his research has had impact in his field, holds a tenured, chair or distinguished post, etc. WP:PROF is clear about that. On the other hand, a gsearch does reveal he has a namesake laboratory at Rice, so that in and of itself might represent notability. But I'm not sure it's enough. §FreeRangeFrog 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every researcher's lab is called after him, that's just colloquial use: "I did a rotation in the Smith lab", etc. I'm just here because I cannot sleep, I'll look into his citation record tomorrow. --Crusio (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very strong citation record indicating that he is a major influence in his field. Web of Science lists several publications with hundreds of citations each (top 5: 598, 329, 207, 198, 126). Given that ecology is a field with rather low citation density makes this record even more impressive. Obviously meets WP:ACADEMIC #1. --Crusio (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crusio. People with citation records anywhere near that good are always kept, and with some work, their articles can almost always be improved substantially.John Z (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Like the WoS search by Crusio, citation impact suggested by Google Scholar indicates notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mission india[edit]

Delete unremarkable unreleased movie, prod denied -Zeus-^u_c 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL at best, unless author can provide sources for his claims (and notability of said film). §FreeRangeFrog 23:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is article referring to Mission Istanbul film ? -- Tinu Cherian - 13:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Istanbul exists, but Mission india hasn't even been released. JamesBurns (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 13:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Langford (computer scientist)[edit]

A PhD comp sci grad, but no notability shown and missing references. Can't find any myself Iwill4q (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simple search reveals his Yahoo Research profile, with ample evidence of citations, etc. Appears to satisfy WP:PROF. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading your link reveals that our article is a copyvio of his Yahoo Research profile. But rather than speedily deleting it per WP:CSD#G12, I think it should be rewritten (see my keep !vote below). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Copyvio has since been fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If " Senior Researcher at Yahoo! Research." is anywhere near the equivalent of positions such as IBM Fellow. They are essentially the industrial equivalent of Distinguished Professor. DGG (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar gives enough citations for a pass of WP:PROF #1; note that that guideline applies to "someone enaged in scholarly research", not just professors. This search finds five papers with over 100 citations each, one of them close to 2000, a very respectable record. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), as shown by David Eppstein’s search. The Science article alone, with its 2037 Google Scholar citations, makes it very difficult to argue for deletion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Carlton[edit]

This WP:BLP is unverifiable; the subject and his theories appear to be completely made up. There are no pertinent Google hits except the subject's own conspiracy theory website http://dotheyexist.com, claiming to be hosted by the University of Königsberg, which apparently no longer exists since after World War II. Compare also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embe about a related article by the same hoaxer. Sandstein 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find any independent sources for this at all, and the affiliation with a nonexistent university doesn't help. Fails WP:V. (One wonders whether he has a colleague named Waldorph Astoria.) Deor (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Doer's comments. Königsberg hasn't existed since WW2. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If not a hoax, then fails WP:V. Given the probability that it is a hoax, perhaps the portrait should be removed following WP:BLP, as that could show a real person. --Crusio (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Studied not at Oxford nor Cambridge but at Oxbridge? Works at Königsberg? Hoax. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO, probably due to not existing in the real world. “Carlton” a German name? Yeah right!--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David T. Hardy[edit]

Does not meet WP guide to notability. Not a notable person. Reads as a vanity page. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - David T. Hardy is a fairly well known author. Current article is a bit smallish, but this is no reason to delete article. Instead, the article should have content added to it. This would also fix the appearance of the subject as not being notable. Yaf (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm ok, but there is no way of knowing whether he satisfies WP:BIO. Where is the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? I admit the possibility it might (or might not) exist, but there is currently no evidence of it. Thanks.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't think a mere book review would suffice as significant coverage, based on the criteria laid out in WP:BIO#Creative_professionals. Is he a widely cited important figure? Significant new theory (rather than crackpot theory)? Has his work been the subject of multiple mainstream analyses?

The way I read it, reviews of his book wouldn't suffice for notability. But I don't nominate articles for deletion very often, so I could be misreading this.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His books are very widely held, Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man is in almost 900 worldCat libraries, the earlier Origins and development of the Second Amendment is in several hundred including most law school libraries. . I have not yet looked for reviews, but substantial 3rd party published reviews in RSs are exactly the sort of third party sources intended by the GNG. Mere notices of the books being published are another matter, as are publisher's blurbs and reader reviews on Amazon. DGG (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, IF someone can find some reviews from reliable third parties, I guess I would be satisfied. Doesn't this interpretation of notability mean that any author who has been reviewed anywhere in the world deserves a WP entry? That doesn't seem encyclopedic to me, but apparently it's the consensus on notability. But please establish these 3rd party reviews, at the very least. Thanks! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that user YAF added a lot more details and citations, making his notability more clear. Thanks for that!Aroundthewayboy (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely published law review author and holds a relatively senior position in a notable national organization. Someone with free Lexis or Westlaw access should add the lists to this article, but I guarantee there are more cites out there than are listed right now.Shadowjams (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my vote to keep, after the work of the above posters to establish notability. Thanks. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embe[edit]

Unverifiable "secret society" symbol, very likely a hoax or made up. The content is only supported by the non-reliable website http://www.dotheyexist.com by one "Dr. Fritz Carlton" whom I'll also nominate for AfD; the cited book "A Comparative Study of Thirty City-state Cultures" does not seem to include any information about this subject at all. Sandstein 21:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find any independent sources for this at all. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified at best, very likely a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBlatant WP:BOLLOCKS. Only references to this "mark of reincarnation" is a blog and a website covering what is clearly a fringe theory. No gsearch results indicate any secondary coverage of this. And it's almost certainly a hoax, what with photos of a secret conspiracy group with clearly visible tattoos on their hands. Uh, yeah. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Comment~~. Two of the photographs accompanying the article (File:Raucher1.JPG, File:EmbeTattoofromUlrichstriptoZurich.jpg), uploaded to Commons by the article's author, are somewhat dubious. Upon viewing the photos at the maximum enlargement possible in Firefox, the supposed tattoos appear as though they were photoshopped into the image. If the photographs are faked, then clearly the entire article is fake. You be the judge. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my "comment" above to "delete". This is apparently not a hoax, but a fringe theory lacking third-party reliable sources.

Three references are cited in this article:

The Reincarnationist Papers is a book that the author, D. Eric Maikranz, is trying to have published, seemingly without success. On his website [4] he publicly offers a reward to anyone who can get his book published.
A Wikipedia article Coat of arms of Bulgaria, which does not discuss the embe.
A Comparative Study of Thirty City-state Cultures by Mogens Herman Hansen is a Google Book. The term embe was not found in a text search of the book

•••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No need for AFD in cases like this. Friday (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obstatunity[edit]

Non-notable neologism

» \ / (⁂) 20:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per WP:A1 -Zeus-^u_c 21:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable neologism. Google turns up TWO uses on the whole of the internet, both by users of websites, not a single use in a published/reputable source. See UrbanDictionary. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologisms must go. §FreeRangeFrog 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICT Tavix (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast episodes. WP:FICT is still proposed, and throwing out all the partisan bunk that shouldn't be on AfD (do not turn deletion discussions into an extension of FICT battleground), articles do not meet GNG and no evidence was given to show that they do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Space Ghost: Coast to Coast episodes[edit]

Six stubs about individual episodes of Space Ghost: Coast to Coast, all of which fail to meet even one criterion spelled out at WP:FICT for the creation of articles about individual television series episodes. Suggest either delete or redirect all to List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast episodes. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:FICT is only a controversial proposal, which will very soon, based on the RfC on the talk page, be a failed historical proposal. Ikip (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there hasn't yet been a single policy-oriented reason for WP:FICT to be failing — the argument boils down to "but then I can't add my own favourite trivia!", not to any genuinely substantive reason why it shouldn't be followed. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have not been paying close attention top the discussion. WP:FICT is diametrically opposed to FIVE PILLARS, and is NOT a guideline. Worse, it has been going through continual modifications and is not the same today as it was last week or what it will appear in another week. Acting as if it is a guideline discredits all who have involved themselves in the ongoing discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been asserted that WP:FICT violates the five pillars. Nobody has demonstrated how it does so. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a suitable article or list of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the list of episodes. Then if anyone wants to merge what little content there is, they're welcome to. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are entire Articles for entire episodes of Aqua Teen Hunger Force & Xavier Renegade Angel. Space Ghost: Coast To Coast is the most memorable Adult Swim Series, to the point that it was mentioned in the Family Guy episode The Father, The Son, and the Holy Fonz. It is the reason Adult Swim, an entire Channel according to Nielsen ratings. It helped to elect Keith Crofford & Mike Lazzo as presidents of said Channel. It directly inspired Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Harvey Birdman: Attorney At Law, Twelve Ounce Mouse, & The Brak Show, and it indirectly inspired every other show on Adult Swim. Also, the List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast episodes has absolutely no information whatsoever about what happens in each Episode, unlike every other Episode Guide on Wikipedia. It was the second adult animation Series ever recorded. It currently has the most Episodes of any Adult Swim Original Series. If anything, at lest keep the important Episodes: Baffler Meal, which inspired Aqua Teen Hunger Force; Pilot, which inspired Harvey Birdman: Attorney At Law; & Kentucky Nightmare, which inspired Twelve Ounce Mouse. The rest can be fused with the List of Episodes, but only if a section is added to that for the actual content of each Episode. TBone777 (talk)0:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because some other show's standalone episode articles haven't gotten deleted yet doesn't mean this one's are entitled to stick around. Secondly, it's not enough to simply assert notability here — the article itself has to demonstrate notability through the use of reliable sources that verify the notability of the topic. And thirdly, read WP:FICT: it has to be shown that the episode is independently notable in some way outside the show's own internal universe. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherstuff exists is an essay, written by less than 10 editors, as the tag on the page states: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." in this case, otherstuffexists is a minority viewpoint, which everyone can dismiss. Bearcat, I would appreciate it if you stop adding WP:FICT in your alphabet acronym soup, as I wrote elsewhere, FICT is a controversial proposal, that has failed twice before to gain acceptance, which based on the current RfC will become a rejected and failed policy. Ikip (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd appreciate it if you stop dismissing the legitimate policy concerns of dedicated editors as some sort of meaningless "alphabet acronym soup". Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His points are well considered and it is a disservice to Wikipedia to yourself direct editors to essays as if they were law. They are not, and there is good reason why they are ONLY essays. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are well-considered statements written by people with substantial experience in dealing with these very issues, and it is a disservice to Wikipedia to deem them irrelevant or unacceptable solely on the basis that they're essays. The fact that it's "only" an essay is not a valid reason to simply dismiss it as inapplicable without engaging the real crux of the issue. Wikipedia rules around essays and guidelines are quite specific that there has to be an actual, cogent and valid reason — which "that's only an essay, so neener neener" most certainly is not — to disregard the position presented in a guideline. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 09:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect per DGG. Hiding T 09:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all In Wikipedia's early "we'll take anything" days, there were lots of articles about each individual episode of each television show that had fans, and there was a feeling that every 30 minute program was "entitled" to an article all its own. More recently, articles about individual episodes of a television show have been reviewed to see if the episode itself is notable, and most shows fail the test. While a series itself is inherently notable, individual episodes have to demonstrate notability by coverage in independent sources. As an analogy, most individual episodes of Dallas would not be notable, although "Who Shot J.R." had widespread coverage in the news. People freak out if I use "the m-word", so I will only say, feel free to edit the parent article. Mandsford (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the debate about television episodes is still out. I consider those early days more a "we are more accepting of editors contributions" than "we'll take anything", and universal negative media about wikipedia current deletion policy seems to echo this setiment. Ikip (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a substantive reason why we should deem unreferenced stubs about individual television series episodes, which consist only of a plot summary with no demonstration of any actual impact on anything, to be encyclopedic material? Or is this just an "I like it" argument? Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A substantive reason? Stubs should be tagged for expansion so as to improve wiki. Your arguments inre "impact" are subjective. Or is your own argument simply a result of WP:UGH? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An unreferenced stub is not entitled to stick around Wikipedia permanently on the basis that it might be expandable. An article can be deleted at any time if it doesn't already meet Wikipedia rules around notability and reliable sources. And by the way, the notion that separate unreferenced stub articles about each individual episode of a TV show somehow improves Wikipedia is pretty damn subjective itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Educating and informing readers isn't encyclopedic? Or does your definition of encyclopedic amount to a "what I like" argument? We can use the definition at the OED or the one at the five pillars, but nowhere in the definitions can I see a definition of encyclopedic material being limited to that which Bearcat has decided has had "impact on anything". Now we can argue all day about whether something has impacted on a viewer or an audience or this, that and the other, or we could simply stop pretending that any reason to keep or delete amounts to anything more than opinion. Encyclopedias inform people. They contain information on a variety of subjects. If we want to engage in emotive language, we could ponder if we really wish to censor what information people can have access to when they visit Wikipedia, and on what basis? Notability guidance was constructed to avoid self-promotion, not to avoid informing people. Hiding T 11:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to see them merged into seasonal summaries in the future. Larger articles can be standalone and still be in the season summary. Currently List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast episodes isn't a summary, it is just a list of episodes without context. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as my comments and other editors comments above. Ikip (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for 'merge to list article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge all, unless (at least one) reliable source (and not just a review) is provided to demonstrate that any individual episode is especially notable for whatever reason and can stand on its own separate from the rest and thereby merits a full encyclopedia entry. I'm guessing that if kept (with the possible exception of Baffler Meal), they're not likely to ever be expanded beyond a stub anyways. -- OlEnglish (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and simply tag for expansion, if "stub" is such a worry. WP:FICT is not a guideline, and is not even a decent essay. Using that as a reason for deletion is a non-argument and editors should not allow it to cloud their considerations. As for a redirect, if informations about individual episodes would overburden the parent article, they are BY CURRENT GUIDELINE allowed to have their own article... else the parent article will be 20 pages long. That gets kind of ridiculous in a paperless encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Baffler Meal, as it is the episode launching the Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters and the article cites independent reliable sources that make this episode easily pass the general notability guideline. Keep or merge the rest, but discussion on whether to merge or keep separate ought to occur on appropriate talk pages rather than AfD. This AfD is a good example of why the proposed WP:FICT guideline is completely useless. Though the consensus on the talk page of that proposed guideline is that WP:FICT isn't intended to be used as a reason to delete, here it is being used as a reason to delete, before it is even accepted as a guideline. Will people ever agree on whether Space Ghost is "important" enough (even though it spun off several other shows, which to me is a good indicator of importance), whether each episode has a "significant role" within the series (how do you even decide this for an animated talk show parody?), or whether the DVD commentary has enough "real-world coverage"? Rather than help us resolve stale old perennial debates, it simply introduces new things for us to argue about. DHowell (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~The independent reference for "Baffler Meal" doesn't even mention the episode by name, much less support any of the paragraph attributed to the reference in the article.~~ The Chicago Tribune reference doesn't support any of the information credited. The remaining articles consist solely of plot summary, in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. If the list of episodes gets too long, people should feel free to break it down into seasons.—Kww(talk) 02:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck are you talking about? Is the Ctrl-F key not working on your keyboard? I must assume that you are not being deliberately deceptive, because at least two unarguably independent references have been in the "Baffler Meal" article even before this nomination, and they both specifically name this episode. From the Toronto Star: "In the episode dubbed 'Baffler Meal,' Space Ghost buys hundreds of hamburgers with which to erect a fort for a food fight." From the Chicago Reader: "The Aqua Teen characters debuted in the 'Baffler Meal' episode as a trio of talking fast-food items..." DHowell (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No idea how I missed that sentence. Struck that part of comment. I will still point out that The characters, while similar to what they are today, were still far from being developed. Master Shake is still the leader of the team, but has no hands, a Space Ghost emblem or sticker on his back (which disappears after being knocked over by Space Ghost toward the end of the episode), a less obnoxious attitude than in the series, and is chocolate, as opposed to the regular series in which it is a green flavor (first lime, and later, pistachio, according to DVD commentary). He was voiced by Dave Willis. Frylock had crinkle-cut fries, legs, an amulet worn around his neck called the Amulet of Idahocules, a fry sword, and was voiced by Matt Maiellaro. Meatwad looked and sounded much like he currently does, but is uniformly depressed and more subservient to Shake, and constantly says the phrase, "The bun is in your mind." Master Shake and Frylock had voices and personalities similar to Ignignokt and Err, respectively. Frylock is also not the brains of the team is all attributed to the Chicago Reader, and none of it seems to be there. The closest I can find is Remodeled for a series of their own -- think Tracey Ullman-era Simpsons versus the golden age stuff -- the narcissistic milk shake, childlike meatball, and responsible box of fries were allegedly a crime-fighting team, which doesn't support that information at all.—Kww(talk) 19:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I've moved that reference, as it appears to at least support the first sentence of that paragraph. The rest may be based on a mixture of primary sources, DVD commentary, and perhaps some original research. I don't have the DVD, so I can't verify at this time. Still, this is an editing issue, not a reason for deletion. DHowell (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is that the two independent sources aren't sourcing much of anything, and the references to the episode are passing mentions in articles devoted to other topics. The entire article doesn't need to be devoted to the topic, but a couple of one-sentence asides to a topic in articles devoted to other things don't qualify as the significant coverage necessary to pass WP:N.—Kww(talk) 03:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ok
- 1) FICT is not a guideline by any stretch of imagination.
- 2) Even if it were, the general perspective seems to be that it only adds reasons for notability.
- 3) Finally, (and this is my most important and controvertial point), these articles contribute positively to Wikipedias general coverage of the subject "Space Ghost". However, the article Space Ghost Coast to Coast is already very long, so merging would be a bad editing decision. If you take this bigger perspective, considering not only this article but also the entire subject, it is clear that keeping the articles is the best move for our encyclopedia. Now I know some policywonks are going to come in here and make a big fuss about notability and procedure, quoting n+1 rules and regulations, so I will pre-emptively respond.
  - a) If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. - Policy
  - b) There is a feasible limit for article size that depends on page download size for Wikipedia's dial-up and microbrowser readers and readability considerations for everybody (see Wikipedia:Article size). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles; however, because Wikipedia does not require paper, we can include more information, provide more external links, update more quickly, and so on. - Policy
  - c) Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. - Policy

AfD hero (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If these are merged, the potential merge target is not Space Ghost Coast to Coast, but List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast episodes, a separate article which is not too long to accomodate the extra information without splitouts. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I checked out the first episode which seems amply covered in good sources. The nomination seems misplaced in that the nominator appears to want a merger. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nominator can always include "redirect" as one option among several. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator believes that "redirect" is a valid option, then it should not have been brought to AfD. See WP:BEFORE, which says "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."

Keep all per WP:NOTPAPER and over seven years of precedent for episode articles. They're episodes of a notable TV show. WP:NOTPAPER is policy, yet WP:FICT is just a proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. An individual episode of a TV show is not automatically notable just because the TV show as a whole is notable — the episode has to demonstrate independent notability as a topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the nominator's assertion that these articles do not meet WP:FICT. They clearly pass the first fork of the proposal (importance of work of fiction). The second fork is currently under dispute and is likely to be completely rewritten judging by discussions on the talk page, so it is hard to say that these fail it. The third fork is apparently met (at least in some cases) due to the fact that several of these influenced the creation of spin-off shows, as described by TBone777 above. I find it very hard to believe that no source could be found that mentions this. JulesH (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Great Lakes Hockey League teams[edit]

WP:CFORK Bhockey10 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article contains duplicate info already included in the league's main article, and therefore not needed as a seperate article to wikipedia. --Bhockey10 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant content fork. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great Lakes Hockey League 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is already covered in Great Lakes Hockey League and is redundant. Mandsford (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not certain the league itself is notable, much less a separate and duplicative list of teams. Reso lute 14:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Reso lute 14:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -Djsasso (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant, unnecessary, provides no information not already given in the main article on the league. Especially so when it is an amateur league and all of the teams are red links. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over the years, as the composition of the league gradually shifts and changes, this list will certainly not seem redundant. Give it time. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can be included in main article like all other leagues. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Low-carbohydrate diet. WP:NOR and per consensus. Malinaccier (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets[edit]

Complete original research violation; not encyclopedic, should be transwikified to Wikiversity. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOR, we are not a purveyor of systematic reviews, let alone non-systematic ones! JFW | T@lk 20:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely original research and POV. Wikipedia is not a review site. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but refocus to health effects, in the spirit of Health effects of tobacco. It's true that an encyclopedia article really shouldn't just be a list of summaries of various studies, but it can summarize the body of scientific knowledge on a subject. Health effects of low-carbohydrate diets would be a better title, I think. But certainly this topic has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by some of the best sources we can cite (academic journals and books). I don't see why it can't stay until the article namespace, as it seems to need editing, not deletion. --Movingday29 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please not~~ Please note that we already have Low-carbohydrate diet. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"please not" that I'm talking about a subarticle, since there's obviously a lot more content here than will fit into the main article. The main article already has a nice summary though. --Movingday29 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my Dutch. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete semi-random collection of primary sources. On a topic with so many good reviews that are cited in the main article, this rather odd sub-article serves no purpose. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an article about "Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets." It is a list of research articles. If an article is important use it as a source for Low-carbohydrate diet. If not forget it. Or start History of low-carbohydrate diets if you like. As long as it is in the form of an article. Redddogg (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scope of this list is too wide (there would be many hundreds of studies to list, if comprehensive) and should be founded on secondary sources (a review of the history, or a book chapter, for example). The mix of studies is not helpful to the reader: studies on epilepsy are mixed with studies on weight loss. Most of the studies listed do not seem to be of great historical significance, and deciding on this would be WP:OR. Colin°^Talk 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I previously gave my reasons here. It's an unencyclopedic list of research. Impossible to be comprehensive given scope and prone to POV in selection of research included. OccamzRazor (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I have already merged the last section (the one about metaanalyses and systematic reviews which was so far down the page that nobody here seems to have noticed it) to Low-carbohydrate_diet#Meta-analytic_studies_and_systematic_reviews. That section is entirely appropriate per WP:MEDRS, and was not included in the main article. So, this needs to be a redirect to comply with GFDL. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've deleted the subsection heading as well as cherry-picked studies in Low-carbohydrate_diet#Scientific_research; so redirect to this main section instead. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information (in a more concise form) is best incorporated in Low-carbohydrate diet. I think that where this one has gotten into original research trouble is the authors' commentary about each study suggested. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Folks, I think it is unfortunate when a misguided agenda gains momentum simply because nobody wants to give it any thought. Let me summarize a few points.
- First, this article was intentionally split out of the Low-carbohydrate diet article because that article was getting too long and the details presented in this article detracted from the overall article.
- More than one individual has suggested there is original research or cherry-picking going on yet, interestingly, nobody has made an effort to balance the discussion. I believe that if you actually take the trouble to search the literature you will find that this list is pretty representative of what's out there. To be more to the point, I propose that, in the absence of a more precise explanation of this accusation, let us say that this particular accusation has been discussed and dismissed a long time ago.
- I realize that it would be preferrable to have an article on the "Health effects of low carb diets" but this is, practically speaking, impossible, as I have explained in both articles as well as the discussion pages. There is no scientific consensus on what the health effects are. As such the only fair way to discuss the health effects and efficacy of the diet is to summarize the research and give the reader an idea of the range of opinions. Unfortunately this necessarily means that the article must be a list article of sorts. Although list articles are generally discouraged they are not expressly forbidden and I believe that this is one of the rare cases where a list article is appropriate. In other words, in the absence of consensus the best that can be done is to present research that represents the major opinions.
- The argument that the research articles do not represent the research seems nonsense to me. Granted the articles and the research are not one and the same. But the point of citing major journals is that they are peer reviewed and therefore are the best sources of details about the research.

I realize that low carb diets are controversial and that many of you fundamentally don't believe in them. But the point of Wikipedia is supposed to be education and that's what this pair of articles has attempted to do. If you have a suggestion on how to organize all of this better please make it. Frankly I don't love how the two articles are organized now but it seemed the best compromise in terms of being informative and unbiased. Please don't let your own biases to get in the way.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mcorazao, the problem is that, as Wikipedians, we shouldn't be doing a "literature search" or attempting to "summarize the research and give the reader an idea of the range of opinions". We need to cite other people who have done that. Once you do that, you end up with a concise article containing information rather than a list of studies. This is nothing to do with controversy. For example, citing small trials, often with no control group, does the reader no good. You need a secondary source from an expert in order to know whether the results from that trial are irrelevant, interesting or important. Lastly, there's a difference between a "health effect" and a "therapeutic effect" (long-term/well people vs short-term ill people) and jumbling them up here isn't useful IMO. Colin°^Talk 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a very good idea for an article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Low-carbohydrate diet.

I'm not sure the article under this AfD is actually OR in the strict sense, since there is citation and, importantly, attribution - as well as an attempt at balance. However, this subject as presented - to be genuinely balanced and informative - would have to be a full and extensive review of the entire debate. I don't think that's a subject for Wikipedia: that's a subject for Wikipedia to write an article about, if anyone performs a full and extensive review. Selection (of studies) is a form of synthesis, and there's too much to choose from here, without - it seems - sufficient independent reviews to cite. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Incidentally, I don't know if such a guideline exists re the difference between selective review of research and overview of an independently reviewed topic, but if there isn't there should be. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid China Tower[edit]

This "mall" is non-notable. Apart for one Toronto Star article, which introduces Splendid China Tower (i.e. local advertisement -- not a commercial, but an introduction -- of a new mall), there are no third-party sources. This "mall" has a tiny market share/number of shoppers compared to its next door neighbours Market Village and Pacific Mall. nat.utoronto 19:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Toronto Star article is substantial. The text of a topic that passes WP:NOTABILITY looking like an advert is a matter of editing, not deleting. --Oakshade (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shppping centers of 343,400 square feet are below the size that is notable , in the absence of something really special. DGG (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the Centre had to seek gov't permission to post an English Language sign in an English Speaking country makes it Notable. Added to article w/CiteExit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So if I hypothetically opened a mini-mall up in Georgina, Ontario, where, just for this example, had a one language sign bylaw, and I wanted to have a second language up, by that fact alone my shopping centre is notable? Hardly. Splendid China Tower is a non-notable mall, and is basically a tiny extension of a gargantuan "Chinatown". nat.utoronto 16:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not a very well-presented or logical rhetorical question. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Area: As an ethnic mall I am sure there is leeway for categorical bypass of the uncited guideline in the comment about notability and shopping mall area. This ethnic mall looks like a very notable ethnic mall. + The controversy + Future expansion plans. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ethnic Mall my ass. Do you even know how many "ethnic" malls, or more specifically Chinese shopping centers are in the Greater Toronto Area? A lot. I would like to refer an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Markham Place. If anything, First Markham Place is a much larger complex, and much larger clientèle than Splendid China Tower. FMP is an "ethnic" mall. But if FMP is non-notable, then how is Splendid China Tower notable? Clearly it isn't. If one was to go to this shopping centre, one would find that it is emptier than Fairview Mall when it decided to shut down several stores before they began redevelopment. nat.utoronto 09:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no provision for spouse of elected officials in WP:POLITICIAN or similar, and no sources currently which allow article to pass WP:GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mulhern[edit]

This man is the husband of a notable person. Otherwise, he is not notable. Any mention of him can be included in his wife's article. There is no reason to include an article on him, especially since there is no citation to any sources. 75.1.7.70 (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 19:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The spouse of the sitting governor of a U.S. State is a position unto itself, with a specific role and duties, and a notable one at that. He more than meets the criteria for WP:BIO. Should we delete everyone on this list Category:Spouses of United States state governors? --Crunch (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is suggesting that all of the articles in the category be deleted. Each article should be judged on its own merits. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No they're not but these people are notable simply because they are spouses of Governors, i.e., First Ladies or First Gentlemen of their respective state. This is a significant public position that passes the criteria for WP:BIO. --Crunch (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep US Governor's spouse, US governor's husband is probably notable. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it going to be wikipedia policy to have a separate article for the spouse of every single Governor in the United States? Are we going to extend that courtesy to the spouse of every Province in Canada? Michèle Dionne doesn't have her own article. What about other countries? Isn't it worth noting that there are no secondary sources to this article? I don't see how an argument can be made that the details of the life of a spouse of the executive of a regional subdivision is encyclopedic. 75.1.7.70 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, I think there is sufficient grounds to warrant an article for the spouse of each sitting governor of a U.S. State. The person who holds the position of First Lady/First Gentlemen of any U.S. state passes the criteria for WP:BIO. --Crunch (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has its own claim to notability. However, I must disagree that being a spouse of an executive office holder of a sub-national unit is automatic notability. One must evaluate each person on their merits, this is kind of a special case of "notable for a single event". Like in those cases, the spouse should be part of the main article, until which time notability allows for a WP:SUMMARY. Of course, spouses of national executive office holders are probably automatically notable, even where the role has no legal standing.

The fact that the office of spouse of States of the USA usually have a "specific role and duties" is irrelevant, because so do say, the Chief of Staff etc. We are talking states here, notability is linked to the notability of the State/Province/Region: remember, this a world-wide encyclopedia, and if we go down this slope, we would end up with thousands of permastub articles on spouses of every regional governor of every article. That is not encyclopedic, and is precisely why we have notability as a criteria for inclusion: if its not notable enough for its own article, then it shouldn't have an article - even if it has biogrphical information that could belong in another article.--Cerejota (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep

Comment — Nominator was using Google Ireland to search for references in order to establish notability; a cursory search on the main .com Google site clearly indicates that the subject is notable per WP:ORG. I am doing a non-admin close on this to remove the AfD template from the article and duly notifying the nominator on his talk page. §FreeRangeFrog 07:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Emily Post Institute[edit]

Subject has not recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.

Google web search brings up their website, and nothing else.
Google news search brings up this article about someone who was laid off by the company. This is trivial coverage. Patton^t/c 19:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. If Google can't find something like this, the claims to notability in the article are obviously false. Unless someone can run a Lexis-Nexis search and come up with something more substantive. §FreeRangeFrog 22:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I was going by the nominators comment here, I have to stop doing that (not assuming bad faith, but for completeness). It appears that he performed a search on Google Ireland, whereas the references cited below by SMSpivey are from the main US Google catalog. I should have noticed the little radio button on top asking me if I wanted to search "only Ireland pages" which obviously I do not usually get. The subject matter is obviously notable. Patton123, you should withdraw this AfD. §FreeRangeFrog 07:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, I'm not sure that you guys are using the same Google that I am, but I found a bazillion articles referencing the Emily Post Institute (which I knew about generally beforehand). For example, this section at 1-800-flowers completely devoted to content from the institute, this book published by the institute, article in USAToday about the institute and legacy of Emily Post, this overview of the company by Portfolio, etc. It seems that the Emily Post Institute is in charge of the syndication and works of Emily Post and her family who also write etiquitte columns. They also seem to be the go-to place for etiqutte experts by the national media. Here are a few more USA Today articles: [5], [6], [7]. SMSpivey (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Parsecboy. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Printzor[edit]

WP:NN — Kosh_{Naluboutes, nalubotes}^{Aeria gloris, aeria gloris} 19:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It may need to be renamed, or possibly transwikied - neither of which require continuation of this AfD. There is no consensus to delete. StarM 06:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case studies of Brown-Sequard syndrome[edit]

This was split off from Brown-Sequard syndrome, as case examples are well beyond the intended scope of Wikipedia's health content. I think it would be very useful for a medical textbook or a student tutorial, but not here. JFW | T@lk 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do however have other similar pages here on Wikipedia: see Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets. One of the problems with rare conditions is that all we really have for them are case studies. This is well referenced and well illustrated. It does however sit at the edge of what Wikipedia should contain.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that this article is original research are incorrect. All these cases have been previously reported and published in peer reviewed journals of international circulation. Furthermore, the description of case studies is legitimate in rare syndromes such as Brown-Sequard Syndrome. Here is a question for you to ponder: If you people who never write anything, yet are highly critical of well written articles insist on deleting everything, who is going to write on Wiki? I can tell you that if this is deleted, there is no point in writing anything on Wiki. A E Francis (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator of this AfD has created hundreds of articles ([8] mostly medical related) and has worked to get several to featured and good article level - despite being an administrator around two thirds of their 50,000+ edits have been in mainspace. It seems perfectly reasonable for an active member of the medicine and pharmacology Wikiprojects - who has made 1000's of constructive mainspace edits about the general subject matter - to ask for a community opinion if they feel the content of a particular article may not be within Wikipedia's remit. Guest9999 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally posted to AfD based on original research. This was however removed as that is not the case. The concern here is that it is at the edge of scope ( probably even a little beyond the edge of scope ) for Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominating statement appears unchanged from when this discussion was originally created [9]. Guest9999 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is still original research in the sense that it tries to synthesise content in a fashion normally to be expected from review articles or textbook chapters. I'm unclear why we should make an exception here. Thanks to Guest9999 for caring to support my nomination with a testimonial to my reputation. JFW | T@lk 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a medical textbook. But even in such a textbook, case reports like this are usually summarized. This would be inappropriate anywhere but in a specialized review. DGG (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is obviously valuable, well-researched and well-sourced information on a non-trivial and non-controversial topic. If it's not breaking any guidelines other than WP:NOT it should be kept. I know, WP:USEFUL and so on, but in this case, I don't care. §FreeRangeFrog 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does break the guidelines on medical articles. Would you find this in a normal encyclopedia? JFW | T@lk 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks if there are no copyright concerns. This is indeed valuable, well-researched content and should not be lost, but it also does not belong in Wikipedia, at least not in its current state. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and, as such, is not the place for extensive discussion of case reports. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Transwiki I think we should keep this as it is really not that far out of scope. I would be fine with Transwiki if we can keep the same link to the main article on Brown-Sequard syndrome --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you find this in a normal encyclopedia? No, not really. Transwiki would be the best solution. JFW | T@lk 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a normal encyclopedia. This is a the largest greatest encyclopedia with the biggest scope every made. And it is getting bigger every day. :-) I just have a couple concerns. One is that case studies are all we have for rare conditions. And this is a rare condition. Doesn't say it is the right format but... Someone has put a lot of work into them and with a bit of guidance would make a very good editor. Something which we do not have many of and definitely should not turn away. And finely even if we do move this to wikibooks much of the content needs to be reworked back into the main article.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think presenting information in the form of case studies is appropriate - Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook and I think that is the context in which this information belongs. If some of the sourced information could be used (without employing original research) in a section describing the various causes of the condition in the main Brown-Sequard syndrome article I might be in favour of a selective merge. Guest9999 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or Keep - This information is well-sourced, pertinent to a rare condition, and well above the average quality of WP. --Scray (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never argued that there was a quality problem. It is simply not the kind of content one would find in an encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well said. --Scray (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Far too detailed for Wikipedia. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent article, I had no problem reading it. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep/Move/Transwiki; This is really good content. Better than most medical content on Wikipedia. As far as I can see the only thing people are objecting to is the name. Perhaps it could be renamed more in accordance with precedent. I also suport that transwiki option. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. As per consensus. Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Tamil Nadu[edit]

This is just a copy of List of Tamil people. (Note that in principle, there could exist different lists; in practice, the two lists are largely identical and updates to one list do not get reflected at the other.) Shreevatsa (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, the piece is largely a duplicate of List of Tamil people. If that main article is to be split up this doesn't seem a particularly logical way to do it as there is significant overlap. Guest9999 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the lists are not copy of each other.The nominator has not looked at the lists carefully. The list of Tamil people has all Tamils whether from India or from the other countries notably Sri Lanka , Malasia etc listed therein. The list of people from Tamil Nadu has all Tamils from countries other than India excluded and non notable Tamils living in Tamil Nadu included. All Indian states have list of people from those states Lists of Indians by state so why can not be there be list of people from Tamil Nadu. Both lists are different lists and should stay as such. Of course the Tamils from Tamil Nadu would be found in both lists. . See also that List of Telugu people and List of people from Andhra Pradesh both exist and many names are common. See also List of Marathi people and List of people from Maharashtra So what is the problem? Shyamsunder (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the lists somewhat carefully; most (at least 90%, it appears) of the content appears to be identical. As mentioned in the nomination, there is a hypothetical case for the existence of two separate lists, but the fact is that this list was created by copy-pasting from List of Tamil people, and unless either this article is merged into the other, or that article has the contents of this one split out (which doesn't seem easy), it is just mostly the same content under two different article names. The point about other articles is WP:WAX. Shreevatsa (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the two lists seem identical is only a reason for cleanup, not deletion-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of people from Tamil Nadu should include non-Tamilians also. Similarly, list of Tamil people should include Tamilians from any place.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GDibyendu C21K ^talk 23:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- List of Tamil people is a list of people belonging to an ethnic group. List of people from Tamil Nadu is a list of people from a particular region. The fact that the two lists seem identical is no reason for deletion. It is rather a maintenance issue.-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 17:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with you. What would be a solution to the maintenance issue? Shreevatsa (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll add the names of people who are non-Tamils but are from Tamil Nadu; there are many, in fact; Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Rajinikanth, M. G. Ramachandran, Periyar ,Thyagaraja, Hemang Badani-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 01:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant the question of maintaining the (large) set of names that are (rightfully) common. How does one deal with them? Is it possible to, say, create a common list and include it on both pages? If there is some solution to keep the two updated together that will not cause a maintenance nightmare, then I'd like to withdraw the AfD nomination, etc. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.. The nomination was withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belleville Mennonite School[edit]

~~Delete~~ Keep - unremarkable school -Zeus-^u_c 18:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unbelievably this was Prodded 1 minute after creation whilst it was still being written. No way can the nominator have followed the WP:BEFORE procedures. The school contains a high school and sources are available to meet WP:ORG. This should be given a reasonable chance. TerriersFan (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First line of WP:ORG:

An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Now, it may just be me, but I don't see any of that in the article. I did a google search, and didn't find much. As far as your WP:BEFORE argument, that can be addressed with the same. -Zeus-^u_c 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article by a new editor and it was proposed for deletion whilst it was being written. What impression does that give of Wikipedia? No wonder new users often feel bitten. A more constructive approach would have been to tag the page for improvement and given the creator guidance; it could have been proposed for deletion if notability could not, after a reasonable time, been demonstrated. TerriersFan (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll remember that in the future. But do you see a chance of notability ever being asserted? I couldn't really find anything. -Zeus-^u_c 20:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In practice, it has almost always been possible to find information showing the notability of all high schools. Hence our reasonable practice of not nominating them for deletion, because it isn't worth the fuss for the 10% or so that might not be. They are invariably major community institutions, and this would especially be the case for a specialised community like this. DGG (signed by -Zeus-)

Thank for the explanation. -Zeus-^u_c 21:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability: the school is notable due to the controversy regarding higher education (higher than eighth grade!!) in the Amish Mennonite and plainer Mennonite church communities which it served at its founding. This historical theme, however, should be more clearly developed in the article, though it may take the student writers more time to do so. EdK (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as withdrawn by nom. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Hall[edit]

Player is a new draftee who has not yet played a professional game, and therfore fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:ATHLETE --JonBroxton (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am finding it annoying having to delete draftee articles. Can someone tell these people that they should only create their articles once they start playing MLS games. Govvy (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Take a look at the roster areas for all MLS teams, and the start of each 'round' for the 2009 MLS SuperDraft. It clearly says to not create articles for new draftees. Not sure what else we can do? --JonBroxton (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment let's start (yet another) disucssion at WP:FOOTBALL about this. Giant Snowman 19:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Simply deleting articles for players because they are recent MLS draftees doesn't make sense; some are notable, some aren't. Though there's a big difference between the number 2 overall pick, and the number 38 pick. This player hasn't even been signed by Toronto. I'm having a hard time seeing why this article should be here. Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, Gowy and JonCockston are sad they lost the Sam Cronin debate. If you're getting so annoyed deleting these articles, don't delete them you stupid pigfucker. "Can someone tell these people that they should only create their articles once they start playing MLS games." That's why Steve Zakuani and Sam Cronin have articles. Dumb bitch. (unsigned comment by 74.14.134.199 who appears to have had their 24-hour block for persistent vandalism expire).

- Comment Isn't intelligent discourse and respect for others fun? --JonBroxton (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thanks for the insult but I try to use as much logic and correctness as possible. However Sam Cronin was a special case because multiple non-registered users voted to keep and all seemed to have the same profanity level as you, shame that you have to bring down the national average of Americans. Govvy (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This player is unsigned and there is no indication that he will be signed anytime soon. Although there is some media coverage of his third-round draft selection by Toronto FC in the recent draft, it seems secondary to the discussion of the 3 first-round picks, failing the general notability requirements in WP:N. Nfitz (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has yet to appear at a fully professional league, and has acheived nothing of note in his college years. It's also worth noting that the CBC link doesn't mention Kyle Hall at all, only a Jeremy Hall. If this article gets recreated as a result of him making his pro debut, this is an issue that needs addressing. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well to be fair, the article is referring to Kyle Hall, when it says Jeremy. During the broadcast of the Draft he was misidentified as Jeremy Hall in the overlaying graphics - even though Jeremy Hall was an American had been drafted 2 rounds earlier. However it speaks to Kyle Hall's non-notability, that CBC hasn't fixed this error 4 weeks after the article came out! Nfitz (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can find multiple sources for him, as in this Afd request. DeMoN2009 17:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - and let me say this case is different than other MLS draftees, the player seems to be only on trial at Toronto FC, so he is not even contracted with them, that gives him even less notability. --Angelo (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AutoTRAX EDA[edit]

A promo for a nonnotable piece of software created by a single nonnotable person. I failed to find any reasonable independent coverage. google gives a huge number of download links, which is not surprizing for such things. - 7-bubёn >t 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Self-promotion --Deenoe 23:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible conflict of interest. The software is published by Kovac Software. The author of this article is IlijaKovacevic . •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria (WP:N) - lacks reputable 3rd party references to establish notability of the software. Dialectric (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feuer und Wasser[edit]

Non-notable song; fails WP:MUSIC -- no justification for its own article Richard BB 17:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability for a stand alone article per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With regrets to Rammstein, but this doesn't meet notability guidelines for a single song. The material can be merged as a section into the album article. §FreeRangeFrog 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure of being a notable song. It was never made into a single or the likes. Tavix (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Te Quiero Puta![edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable song; fails WP:MUSIC -- no justification for its own article -- has been deleted previously and recreated Richard BB 17:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability for a stand alone article per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With regrets to Rammstein, but this doesn't meet notability guidelines for a single song. The material can be merged as a section into the album article. §FreeRangeFrog 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stirb nicht vor mir (single)[edit]

Non-notable song; fails WP:MUSIC -- no justification for its own article Richard BB 17:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With regrets to Rammstein, but this doesn't meet notability guidelines for a single song. The material can be merged as a section into the album article. §FreeRangeFrog 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zerstören[edit]

Non-notable song; fails WP:MUSIC -- no justification for its own article Richard BB 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With regrets to Rammstein, but this doesn't meet notability guidelines for a single song. The material can be merged as a section into the album article. §FreeRangeFrog 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable album track. JamesBurns (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willingway Hospital[edit]

Delete unremarkable hospital -Zeus-^u_c 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Readers Digest calling it "The Betty Ford Center of the South" seems somewhat remarkable. There are 140 book references but a lot seem like directories. --Movingday29 (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the Reader's Digest article is a pretty clear earmark of notability.Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)141.165.42.204 (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later: I notice there is a Good Housekeeping reference to the hospital and the Mooney family who founded it. Here is the reference: Good Housekeeping; Aug94, Vol. 219 Issue 2, p98, 6p, 1 chart, 3 color, 1 bw Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has hits (but you need to sift out the directories out...). Could perhaps do with more external reference - but the field they work in isn't a 'glamorous' one like paediatrics or oncology. Notable enough to my mind. Peridon (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I wrote the article Willingway Hospital and really do appreciate all of the feedback. I went in and referenced a book that Dr. Al Mooney co-authored. It is well-known in the field of addiction. Being that he is on the Board of Directors at Willingway, perhaps the addition of this information helps confirm Willingway's notability. Jeconlon (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Prod'ed 2 min after creation, then AFD'd the following day. Give the Article a chance. Hospitals generally can satisfy WP:N, and I'm betting that this one will too. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the name, I think this is more of a treatment center than a conventional hospital. --Movingday29 (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. This article has issues regarding the BLP policy. Accusations with no references make this a speedy. Tone 21:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Shujah[edit]

Cannot even verify existence per WP:V, to say nothing of WP:BIO issues. Also, throughly unsourced, often negative, BLP. Ray (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack page. It is not acceptable to make the suggestions contained in this article without very thorough sourcing.-gadfium 18:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobama[edit]

Trivial campaign neologism of no lasting importance. Borock (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable neologism WP:NEO. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one source did not even discuss the word. It just included it in a list of things McCain fans were shouting at a rally. Redddogg (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find it hard to imagine any context in which this would be more deserving of an article than Hillary Clinton's "No way, no how, no McCain" quip, and there's no way that one would merit an article at all. Non-notable neologism whose utility is quite obviously gone for good. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. It was pretty widespread on bumperstickers (saw one this morning), but I don't think it rises to the level of an encyclopedic neologism mention. It might return in 2012 and become notable, but crystal ball and all, it just isn't notable today. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologisms must go. §FreeRangeFrog 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, with no useful context. --Crunch (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not merit an article. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2059[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2059 (2nd nomination)

Only one, astronomical, scheduled event. Does not qualify as notable. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Alternatively, merge 2050–2059 into 2050s.) Part of a family of articles. I'd say we should keep these unless all of the decade were merged. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arthur Rubin; and an astronomical event is notable. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a classic example of Wikipedia:There is no deadline. I have no doubt that the article will expand. Keep, unless we change our tradition of having articles about years. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party sources or references or other indications of notability provided. Things are not noteable simply because they exist. Jtrainor (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not being verified means it can be fixed through editing. It's not the same as unverifiability. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the article is a bit empty but it will fill up as we get closer to the time. We will, eventually, have a 2059 article, (as I have no doubt Wikipedia will be around that long), so we might as well start it now. As for the one event currently listed, in 50 years times, who knows, it might be a first. FFMG (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Jmundo, FFMG. Edward321 (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As 2059 approaches this article will be filled with information. For instance, many state caucuses and primaries for the 2060 US Presidential election will probably be held that year. It's also important as a reference for other calendar systems. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Engberg[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenceed for nearly two and a half years, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not demonstrating significant notability WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Artist does not meet MUSICBIO, and preliminary searches reveal no immediate sources which could be used. I don't see this becoming wikified in the future due to lack of sources for almost two and a half years, per nom. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lotta & Anders Engbergs Orkester, as the subject appears not to be notable independently of the band. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this, along with Anders Engbergs and Lotta & Anders Engbergs Orkester, form a walled garden. Each uses the others for its notability, yet none of the articles indicate a single reliable source indicating compliance with WP:MUSIC. Unless such sources arrive, all three articles should be deleted. B.Wind (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azadeh Moaveni[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Azadeh Moaveni is a non-notable person failing WP:BIO. Sadra2010 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Azadeh is a notable person. She is a respected journalist and published author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.178.135 (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also respectfully disagree. Ms. Azadeh Moaveni has published articles in the Washington Post, served as Time Magazine Middle East correspondent, and been interviewed by Mother Jones. My family and I will happily hear the lovely Azadeh Moaveni's presentation on her perspectives of Iran on Feb. 25, 2009, at the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco, which hosts highly notable speakers. I vote against deletion.

DonL (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are a few of the many sources available: [10][11][12][13]. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil. The subject is noteworthy and appears as a topic in several sources like The Economist and The Washington Post. Majoreditor (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clever darts[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete, probable Neologism, no citations or Google hits. . . Rcawsey (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas total WP:BOLLOCKS Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable WP:NEOlogism. _ Mgm|^(talk) 13:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom LeContexte (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7; as Esradekan notes, it may well qualify for G7 as well.Kubigula (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harout Zenian[edit]

No real assertion of notability Binary TSO ^??? 11:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no independent verifiable sources. I know some editors believe "every man and his dog" is entitled to an article, but this is taking the cake! WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied A7, now tagged as such. Borderline G7. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi jokes[edit]

And this Hindi joke is in English. Essay, OR, and banal. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no meaningful content, OR. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no meaningful content, essay. Sketchmoose (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I used Twinkle and it sometimes fails. I usually check. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Lee Clary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable bio likely to have been written by Clary himself. Is not well-sourced and has been deleted in the past. Most professional wrestling fans have probably never heard of "Johnny Angel". Lee C. Ellison (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

page should not be deleted. Johnny is a public figure, people have a right to know what they can about him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traceya7 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be nominated for deletion. It has already been nominated before and voted on and the result was to keep. The article is well sourced and has plenty of references and was not written by Clary himself as Lee C. Ellison alleges. One only has to enter the name of Johnny Lee Clary in any search engine and plenty of sources attests to him as a well known public figure. Most recent news articles have him on the front pages of newspapers all over the world, including New Zealand, Australia and India. In addition there are many news articles written on him in the United States. Just because Lee C. Ellison has never heard of Johnny Angel does not mean no one else has. He never bothered to check his sources on Johnny Angel or Johnny Lee Clary. www.onlineworldofwrestling carries his bio as well as other wrestling websites. This article should not only be voted to * KEEP but it should be sent to an administrator and a protest be filed that it was improperly re-nominated for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia standards. ReaganRebel {talk} 2:26, 1 February 2009 {UTC}

Johnny Lee Clary is a notable figure- I actually came to Wikipedia for the first time to find information on him. He recently was interviewed on a prominent National radio program here in New Zealand and has attracted a lot of subsequent media interest. It's a no-brainer- this page should not be deleted- steveburgess114

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new member to Wikipedia but use it often for all sorts of research and find it valuable to my studies. I appreciate the diversity of subjects whether I agree with them or not, or whether it rubs me the wrong way or not. I believe in freedom of speech as well as equal access to information that is out there. I vote to keep the Johnny Lee Clary page up and going. I don't know what all the hoopla is about. Lets keep our personal feelings out of the way and let truth come forward and stay. Kevincostner (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Johnny_Lee_Clary"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Johnny_Lee_Clary" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevincostner (talk • contribs) 00:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments at previous AFD. He was notable then, and I see no reason not to consider him notable now. Note that the nominator only mentions his wrestling career, while it is in fact as a reformed former head of a KKK chapter that he is notable. JulesH (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources establish notability, even if it's self-promotion. §FreeRangeFrog 23:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments at previous AFD (agreeing with all above). Why is this continually up for deletion, such a prominant anti KKK spokesman would have many perpetual enemies in cyberland. Perhaps after this, the article should be excempt from this process ever happening again. It doesn't matter if "Johnny Angel" wrestler is not a household name, Johnny Clary former KKK leader, is very well known. User Lee C. Ellison is just anonymous anyhow? why waste so much time with this, doesn't someone have to be at least credible to nominate for deletion? 121.218.37.35 (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to U.S. state#List of states. Redirect will maintian useful title, and link to existing version inside a well-used en.Wikipedia article (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the United States[edit]

not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for interactive maps with no articles attached.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to source that before you can claim such a thing.--cooljuno411 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there aren't any policies pertaining to this particular sort of thing, per WP:BEANS. However this is obviously not encyclopedia content.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to definition of "encyclopedia" ("reference work", "comprehensive written compendium that contains information", etc), yes, this would fit. So i oppose deleting. No harm of the article. And it sure has helped me find information.--cooljuno411 07:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I typed in "map of the united states" and got this page, which provided exactly what I was looking for. The fact that I was able to find such information so easily is reason enough for me to vote to keep. The purpose of this site is to provide useful information quickly to people, right? --Quintin3265 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. Even if this articles conveys information in a helpful way, it is not an encyclopedia entry. It is an education tool, and does not belong on wikipedia.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page is really very useful and clever. However it is not an encyclopedia article, as others have said. Could a place be made for it and other "map index pages"? Borock (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that Keep, as a useful accessory to WP's encyclopedia function. Borock (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This map also exists at U.S. state#List of states. I suggest redirecting this to that section. Deor (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect to U.S. state#List of states - Rather strange if you think of it as an article, but quite useful if you think of it as a visual disambiguation page for the states of the United States. This is surely a plausible search term. I have marked the article as a dabpage. So I recommend keeping this unless someone can show me policy that prohibits it. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean a stand-alone list, not a dab page. This isn't disambiguating any terms. Deor (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds more logical. Actually, your idea of a redirect is even better. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to U.S. state#List of states as per User:Deor's suggestion Mangoe (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect Would have suggested merging into that article if the map was not already present there. Stand-alone is not an encyclopedia article, but the map itself definately adds to the encyclopedia in general and is a valuable navigation tool for this encyclopedia. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many established print encyclopedias have stand alone atlas sections, so the nominator's arguments don't really hold much water. That said, I could live with a redirect to U.S. state. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the map itself is certainly useful, transcluding it and nothing else into a standalone article at the title "Map of the United States" is not. Redirect the title to U.S. state#List of states; since the map is already transcluded into that article as a template, it's not as though redirecting would cause us to lose the map's function. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In traditional paper encyclopedias, an atlas has normally been included. On the basis that we have everythingthat other encyclopedias do, we could even justify this as a stand alone article.DGG (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the value of an atlas feature, but this ad hoc method isn't the way to go about it. It would seem to me, for instance, to better to have something like Atlas:United States. In any case, It needs to be presented as a formal proposal and discussed. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of previous proposals: one, two LinguistAtLarge • Msg 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional paper encyclopedias have space and organizational limitations that we don't have — namely, it's somewhere between spectacularly difficult and completely impossible for a paper encyclopedia to integrate maps directly into the articles themselves in the way that Wikipedia can quite easily. So a paper encyclopedia segregates its maps to a separate section, but we don't need to do that here, because we've already placed maps directly into the articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there a WikiAtlas to transwiki this to? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very excellent article, I myself have used this for reference; it exists in many interwikis. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge somewhere While definitely useful, it doesn't really fit in well under current policies. Jtrainor (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to U.S. state#List of states. It certainly is not necessary to maintain a separate article containing solely what is already contained within another article—but it baffles me that someone would describe a map of the U.S. as "obviously not encyclopedia content", when such maps have probably appeared in every printed general encyclopedia published in the last two centuries! DHowell (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naked_Conversations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not notable, PR, Blogcruft Drinkadrink (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability WP:NTEMP WP:NNC
PR - The content doesn't even delve into context or dialogue of the content
Secondary sources? Other than cross-linking bloggers?
This book is created + mostly edited by a lone-wolf (possible sockpuppet/business associate?) Special:Contributions/Mknac
Associated with blogcruft PR at Robert Scoble (recently won a landslide keep) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shel_Israel, who edits his own articles. It is typical for bloggers and their business associates to puff and defend each others articles.

I enjoy that certain users want to stick up for their heroes, however I believe that's the people choice. --Drinkadrink (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been subject to accusations of bad faith. Please don't mistake my naiveté for meanness[14]. I care about making WP a good place for everyone, this book genuinely lacks notability. Sure, it's written by a popular blogger, perhaps it can get a single sentence on his page, not an article. I highly doubt there is much useful about this book per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkadrink (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unsourced does not mean not sourceable. There's a large range of reviews and other sources that can be used to expand the article. StarM 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews? This is blogcruft sources from tech magazines. Be wary of the low quality, high quantity of blogcruft sources. Everyone one of these are 1 sentence cameos on magazines saying "Scoble wrote this book", that doesn't warrant an article, maybe a sentence on his page. Not critical review going to substance of the book. Instead of a literary marvel, this is a buzz book by a blogger. This book didn't really spark any debate or change anything in the blogosphere. I recommend deletion and we can put it in a section in Robert Scoble. --Drinkadrink (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment so you're advocating a merge WP:BK disagrees with you and I see the Washington Post as well as the Guardian, last time I checked both were reliable sources and not buzz. StarM 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment No merger is needed, It's already in Robert Scoble. WP:GHITS WP:BIGNUMBER and per nom. Fleeting references and superficial looks are more of a PR statement. If this book was important enough to warrant a whole article we would have sleus of hard sources. There isn't much to say about this book. No one has even bothered to describe its innards (which is great evidence it was blogfans who jumped on the bad wagon for a week a threw the book out), so it's probably not notable. This is a book you buy when you fly an airplane. --Drinkadrink (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I get it, you don't like it. The fct that no one has added the sources to the article means it needs fixing, not deleting since the sources exist. I linked to the reviews, not ghits. It doesn't matter where you read or buy the book, if it meets WP:BK, which this does. StarM 13:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; as with the first AfD nomination, this appears to be a bad-faith nomination based on the nominator's personal dislike of the subject. The nominator's contributions this year have solely been in the pursuit of deleting information related to Robert Scoble and Shel Israel, this book's authors. Usually when I see something like that, I tend to suspect the person in question is not seeking to improve the encyclopedia through careful application of policy. Warren -talk- 05:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely notable, and also agree with Warren's above statement. Recommend that nominator reviews notability guidelines and deletion criteria. Ceran^→//forge 14:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I just added three more references to the article. Passes WP:BOOK. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the improved article and tag for expansion per discussions above. Nice job all! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep "Blogcruft," "blogcruft," and "blogcruft" are not reasons to delete an article; it's a reason to improve to improve it. Thankfully, some editors have started that process. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moved article and AfD to correct title. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Book meets GNG and sources have been added. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Valley Creek Bridge[edit]

Not a notable bridge. Rschen7754 (T C) 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's covered in books as the "first prestressed concrete cast-in-place segmental bridge built in the United States", with enough detail about its construction to satisfy notability. --NE2 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:NOTABILITY per the in-depth sources provided by NE2. --Oakshade (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG without any serious difficulty. I'm doubly convinced by NE2's book source, which provides a reason for inclusion above and beyond source coverage. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious notable bridge. Article poorly written, but that's no excuse. I cleaned it up a bit. It needs a bit more. --Crunch (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was a lot of participation from new users in this debate, and quite a few WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type arguments, which I discounted. However, no one rebutted the point made by Nfitz - namely, the subject appears to meet (weakly) the general notability guideline by having significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Given that, we don't even need to reach the issue of the sub-guidelines like WP:ATHLETE or essays like WP:FOOTYN. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Cronin[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: ((subst:spa|username))

Player is a new draftee who has not played a professional soccer game, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N --JonBroxton (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranje^T 10:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.... Someone who is a SECOND OVERALL draft of a professional league doesnt get a page but no-name college basketball players who GASP arent professional do? What a hypocritical POS you all are. Stop being WIKI NAZI's and keep tha page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.74.84 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP.... you wouldn't sell your computer just because you left to take a piss. Cronin WILL play with TFC on some level. Why create more work for people? Besides, those of you who want to delete, do you even follow TFC or MLS for that matter? If not, then your opinions are null and void. This is information for people who care, not for those who just want their name to something. Again, who is Sam Cronin? 2nd round draft pick in the MLS superdraft, drafted to TFC in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.34.106 (talk • contribs)

KEEP.... #2 ovrall draft pick, on a PRO team. that should count for something. wiki nazis need to get a life and find better things to do than delete articles because they don't like the sport... fuck the wiki nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.176.195 (talk • contribs)

Are you guys morrons?

It's seems you are! What idiots! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.76.214 (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There is no need to delete it. You're just being a wiki nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.244.161 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Recreate if and when he plays in a fully-pro league match. Jogurney (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I've gone back and added references which show Cronin finished as second runner-up for the Hermann Trophy. In my view, that is sufficient for the article to pass WP:N. Changed my vote to weak keep as well. Jogurney (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete you fucking tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.134.199 (talk • contribs)
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN in that has not played yet in anything notable, recreate if and when--ClubOranje^T 10:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He sined for Toronto FC and is now a pro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.252.233 (talk • contribs)
Keep - per the media attention associated with being the second overall pick in a prominent American sports draft. matt91486 (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You deleted someone else's !vote, hopefully only by accident and not on purpose, when you posted the above. I've put it back in..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I think you know that I've been voting in these long enough to not delete someone else's intentionally. When I type, sometimes I accidentally do the keystroke for deleting a line of text above me. I almost always notice. This time, I missed it. My bad. matt91486 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if there are references, they do not refer to a notable acheivement. Sportsmen rarely acheive much without playing their sport at a notable level. Kevin McE (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable achievements for a non-notable footballer. --Angelo (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Camw (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hang on - he was the number 2 pick in the 2009 MLS SuperDraft. He easily meets WP:N with articles such as [15] [16], [17]. Nfitz (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You fucking douche canoes, hypocritical cocksuckers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.134.199 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 February 2009
- Thank you for your constructive comments which I found to be very much in keeping with your other contributions to Wikipedia. However, in this particular case they are very similar to the earlier comments you made in this discussion and therefore do not add additional value. Rest assured that your earlier comments will be considered with the due regard they deserve and if ~~you do~~ he does go on to make a notable appearance in a professional league we can easily reinstate ~~your~~ his page for you~~, restoring the attention and fame you crave so fervently~~ --ClubOranje^T 10:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- if you are so interested in policing these pages, why don't you also stick a delete tag on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_DeMartin, who has yet to play a professional soccer match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.68.216 (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep #2 pick in the draft, expected to play minutes in the first team Noonehasthisnameithink(talk) 06:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If and when he does , ask to get the page recreated. --ClubOranje^T 10:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - It's not a question of if, but when, there's no point to delete article now, the season is starting soon Noonehasthisnameithink (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Curry_(basketball) and other college basketball wikis. None of them have ever played a pro game, Sam Cronin is much more of a pro than they are, yet they have their own pages. Would be hipocritical to delete this and not delete every current college ball player. this comment apparently added by unsigned IP 99.247.62.34, inadvertently placed petween previous contributors user and talk page sigs
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Soccer has different standards of criteria from other sports. --JonBroxton (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has signed a contract and currently is with the team. draft picks in other sports often get pages even before they begin playing in the league(see Lebron James). Sam Cronin was actually a well known soccer player in college, finalist for awards. If soccer has different standards than other sports, can someone please provide the link to those standards and the standards of other sports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.68.216 (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What most people here would be working off in terms of standards would be Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability I believe. Camw (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then why does it state this in your notability rules "or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." I believe that is justification enough to leave it up. So bugger off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.244.161 (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played, fails WP:ATHLETE. Don't edit my post. DeMoN2009 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that if NCAA competition qualifies you for other sports, then it should do so for soccer as well. At least for the few dozen players who are drafted each year it should count, I guess. American soccer is operating under a different system than pretty much every other country in the world, and I don't think that should be entirely disregarded. I think that a fair situation would be to allow articles for MLS Draftees to exist until the start of the next MLS season. If they are not part of a professional roster by then, it would be fine to delete them. I dunno, but I vote to keep. --

Grant .Alpaugh 21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree. With the MLS draft system, we have a bunch of very-qualified 22 and 23-year old's. Those that are drafted in the first round, and signed by an MLS team, all end up playing quite quickly, given the very small roster sizes in MLS - even more so now, with the elimination of the reserve division. It's hard to imagine that a number 2 draft isn't notable - look at this guy's achievements Hermann Trophy finalist, Lowes Senior Class Award, NSCAA First Team All-American, Soccer America First Team MVP, College Soccer News First Team All-American. Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this guy have a Wiki page even though he's less accomplished than Cronin in soccer and has only played amateur? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_DeMartin

Keep The guy was a top three draft pick for a professional soccer club, and a notable college player, who was considered one of the best in the league, and was nominated for several awards. This meets the benchmark for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.215.244 (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the accepted notability standards for association footballers. If/when he ever plays at professional level the article can easily be recreated. For the record, "I like it" and "other stuff exists" are not valid reasons for the article to be kept and should be discounted, keep it for a while and see if he becomes notable does not fit with WP:CRYSTAL or the concept that notability is not temporary, and vandalising the AfD will not prevent the proceess from reaching a conclusion. King of the North East 21:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think a fair system would be, when they play a pro game in MLS then the player can have an article. Until otherwise, delete! As for all these IP's with the same tone as each other, I am surprised no one has said it's one and the same person. That considering they all have the same language skills... which is poor! Govvy (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is not just an amature athlete who has been drafted to a professional team. He has already distinguished himself enough to have been amongst the most sought after prospects in American Soccer.

Keep At the highest level of amature competition he stood out enough to earn the following: 2005 - ACC All-Freshman Team, 2006 - NSCAA Second Team All-South, ACC All-Tournament, team MVP, 2007 - NSCAA Second Team All-American, Soccer America First Team MVP, NCAA College Cup All-Tournament, NSCAA First Team All-South, First Team All-ACC, ESPN the Magazine Academic All-American, team captain, 2008 - Hermann Trophy finalist, Lowes Senior Class Award, NSCAA First Team All-American, Soccer America First Team MVP, College Soccer News First Team All-American, NSCAA First Team All-South, First Team All-ACC, team captain, 2009 - Drafted 2nd overal in the MLS Superdraft JDGRPB (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC). [reply]

KEEPSam was signed to a professional soccer contract with Toronto FC of the MLS as well as taken in the top 5 for the 2009 MLS Super draft. Even if he never plays a professional game (which he will due to the nature of soccer), he is considered a professional because he goes to work every day and earns a paycheque from a professional organization. I'm pretty sure that makes him a professional. Plus, you wiki-douch-bags should not be arguing stupid samantics about someone who already meets the requirements of being a professional, when pages are getting hacked all kinds on this site. You should be embracing writers that are expanding the great encyclopedia that this is. There are lots of people from the province of Ontario that are looking for valid info on this kid and this is supposed to be a place people can rely on to get that info. Stop being douche-bags. Thanks [Razcle] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razcle (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has not yet made an appearance for a team in a fully-professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Claiming Cronin will play for TFC is crystal ballery. Recreate if and when he does make his debut. --Jimbo^[online] 03:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's immaterial that he fails WP:Athlete, as he passes WP:N; though surely he has played at the highest amateur level - he was the runner-up for the Hermann Trophy which would make him the second-best amateur player in soccer. Also the clain that this his impending play for Toronto is crystal ballery is wrong. This guideline says Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This future event IS almost certain to take place (you name me the last top-3 draft MLS draft pick who was signed and didn't play in MLS). Nfitz (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - he was 2nd runner up (3rd best). Also, I don't think it's appropriate to assume he will play in MLS. He could suffer a career-ending injury or just never pan out. I agree that it's very likely he will play in MLS, but until he does, he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. However, as I stated above, I think the article satisfies WP:N so the article should be kept. Jogurney (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN Criteria number 4 by being named NSCAA First Team All-American, and by being a Hermann Trophy finalist. These are the highest achievements one can get at the National Amature level. EDIT: Additionally, He assisted on a goal yesterday in a game between Toronto FC and the US Mens U-20 team. JDGRPB (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Please don't !vote more than once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He easily fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play professionally, and (as already stated) simply signing for a pro team is NOT enough to confer notablilty as there is no guarantee he will ever play at this level (remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). However, the NCAA awards he has won and the media coverage that come with them are just about enough for him to pass notability guidelines... just. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cronin made an appearance yesterday for Toronto FC, http://toronto.fc.mlsnet.com/news/team_news.jsp?ymd=20090209&content_id=216484&vkey=news_t280&fext=.jsp&team=t280 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.234.163 (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough about him to make him notable. Dream Focus (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fab Faux[edit]

Nothing but PR for this non-notable band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissPijon (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable per Wikipedia:Notability, quite a few results on Google News, including [18][19][20][21]. —Snigbrook 14:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Appears to be a bad faith nomination by someone involved in a dispute over a page covering a different Beatles tribute band. No "revenge" deletion nominations, please! Easily meets Music notability criteria #6: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable..." In fact, two members of this band are otherwise notable; Will Lee with the CBS Orchestra and Jimmy Vivino with The Max Weinberg 7. This nomination should be closed as a speedy keep. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C1 & WP:MUSIC#C6. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily notable, for the reasons given above. Rlendog (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggleball[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Deletion proposed - non-notable or ficticious game, no references or Google hits. Rcawsey (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Durn shame that someone went to all the trouble to create this. At least I learned what a castor board is (it's one of those Ripstik things that looks like a wobbly skateboard). The "sport" is played by people who stand on the boards and skate with a basketball to a goal, and it's legal to knock someone down. Sounds like a homicide waiting to happen. Mandsford (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This is a legitimate game that is soon to exist in the form of a club sport after school in Charlotte Mecklenburg. As far as "sounding like a homicide waiting to happen", players wear safety gear, and it is certainly less dangerous than skateboarding at skateparks, or playing American Football and Rugby. Because the board stops when there isn't weight on it, it cannot slip out from under you and knock you off balance. This game is not fictitious, as it is indeed played, and it is notable because it will soon be a club in Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tykool123 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) — Tykool123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

When the kids of Charlotte, North Carolina manage to convince anyone else in the world to care about this, then it can have an article. At the moment, no Google hits implies no notability. Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This page allows for people who are interested in playing the game to have a place where they can access all the rules and gameplay. This will allow for farther spread of the game, and a site readily available to anyone about the game unlike private sites such as facebook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugman77 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't Delete~~ While this game is relatively new, it is growing exponentially. This will no doubt be unquestionably notable within the year, so why even have this argument?

Delete Soon to exist? WP:CRYSTAL maybe. If it's notable in a year, come back with evidence. As it is, there's none. There are many small localised sports that fail on notability (the version of nurdling I used to play in my youth for one), and I'm afraid this is one. Or maybe it's one of those 'bored afternoon' things... Peridon (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Don't Delete~~ But did nurdling have an awesome official logo? Why censor this anyway? It certainly isn't hurting anybody, and everything on the page is true. How can a sport ever become notable if it is censored before its rise? Would the accompaniment of a website to cite add credibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tykool123 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC) — Tykool123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- You've already said don't delete before. Remember that AFD is a discussion, not a vote. MuZemike 21:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable game, looks like something made up one day. See above comment that this game is "soon to exist". NawlinWiki (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it...it's a legitimate game that's fun to play and lots of time was put into the creation of this game. Right now it's not as big as baseball,sure, but the page should stay. The game will grow more with word of mouth. It's already quickly growing around Charlotte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.177.160 (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Tykool123's comment is out of context, as he implied that the Charlotte Mecklenburg league is soon to exist, not the game itself. Also, take a look at tykool123's last comment. He speaks words wise beyond his years. (not sure what age that is)

~~Don't Delete~~ as to "looks like something made up one day..." of course, every game was made up one day, then they grow over time. This is happening here, it is growing. Just because something is new doesn't mean it has no potential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugman77 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even though it could exist, notability has not been established yet. Any claim to future notability is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Note: I striked obvious duplicate votes, even though I believe there are other dupes.Tavix (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is for discussion, it's not a majority vote. Plus you crossed out one that was from a different person. — Ugman77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. A lot of the pro-keep arguers here seriously need to look at WP:CRYSTAL. Notability and future tense statements are incompatible. Not literally, but hopefully you get my meaning. You cannot argue something is notable because it will some day be notable. For one thing, that means by definition it ISN'T notable. For another, your prediction may very well be wrong anyway. There has yet to be a non-deletion argument made in this AfD that does not run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, or WP:IKNOWIT. - Vianello (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of verifiability as well as crystalballery. We do not create Wikipedia articles to boost popularity of someone or something—that is called spamming, which is not allowed. As also noted in Talk:Wiggleball, Wikipedia is not your own web host to act as a repository and promotion vehicle of this madeup sport. Perhaps if the sport garners significant coverage via reliable secondary sources, then it may be suitable for inclusion in the future, but not now. MuZemike 00:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the points that you guys are making for the deletion of this page, but can someone explain what to me what the HARM is in keeping it, seeing as it is not at all falsified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tykool123 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. See WP:NOHARM. - Vianello (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the whole crystalball deal, but this sport already exists, it is not a made up thing or a prediction. It is a real sport, with rules that are to be followed. Therefore, if anyone hears of it, and wants to find out what it is, which is what wiki is used for, to find out info about something, then they will find the page on wiggleball and be able to be infomed, thus completing wikipedia's purpose. Therefore, i believe it should stay----Emunchkinman353

And as far as the harm, if we were to keep articles based on every new idea that someone conceived, we would be overrun with articles about people's ideas, which is why Wikipedia has all these rules about being limited to "notable" topics. Surprisingly, we get lots of proposed articles about games and sports that people have invented, and some of them are very interesting. As the parent of two teenagers who are good at skateboarding, I like the idea of a ball game played on Ripstiks (the knock-down rule, however, is nuts). And believe it or not, lots of us have invented games that were popular with our friends. I hope that you can attract the attention of the local news, but until you get that attention, the article doesn't meet the notability test. Mandsford (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the spam claim, this is just a means of making information about this sport available, not a promotional tool for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.41.206 (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Besides, wouldn't it be a shame for nobody to see that beautiful logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.41.206 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Who gets final say on deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.41.206 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response.An admin, after the five day discussion period. By the by, please try to group your comments together for readability. - Vianello (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a bunch of kids mucking about, extremely unlikely to ever be the subject of coverage by third party reliable sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggleball exists also in Chester County PA and is a largely growing sport in the Downingtown and Exton Regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.36.105 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Please feel free to provide a source that demonstrates this. - Vianello (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zing.vn[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable website SPAM. Even with cleanup it doesn't have notability or reliable sources. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) as blatant advertisement. I don't understand why the original G11 speedy was declined here. This is obvious spam. MuZemike 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby eye color[edit]

Contested prod and prod2. Reads like a personal essay. Sources fail WP:RS. Article fails WP:V, WP:OR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, not encyclopaedic.Pahari Sahib 16:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article, although it seems the author means well, is really silly. You can not give your unborn baby blue eyes by adding blue food coloring to the water you drink. Redddogg (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New contributor, first contribution, so I don't want to be too harsh -- but there is a certain style that is required in encyclopedic articles, and this is not it. I think that this was inspired by a website that the author thought was interesting, which offers a means of calculating what color your offspring's eyes might be. However, it's not written in an encyclopedic style, and the article Eye color covers the subject very thoroughly.Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. I was going to prod this myself, but someone beat me to it. The claims that a baby's eye color can be affected by eating foods of a certain color or "atomic makeup" are laughable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research by somebody who clearly doesn't know much at all about the area they're talking about. JulesH (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to True Family. Sandstein 08:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young Jin Moon[edit]

Notability of the person not asserted, only that he was related to Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon. The article only discusses his death, and then mainly the reaction of other people to it. Redddogg (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into True Family. A GNews search shows several RS covering his death (which are not included in the article at present) but I really don't see him notable for anything else. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Since I am a Unification Church member I was informed of this AfD. I generally think that Rev. Moon's family is given too much attention on WP, relative to the interest in them outside the circle of church members and church critics. We members, of course, think they are very important. I don't care to get involved however. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or (minimal) merge: article only covers his death, and does not establish notability. Any discussion of the effect of his death on his family or church would seem to make more sense in those articles, but even there should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of my concerns with True Family is that is undersourced, and contains some negative data. The merge would be a good opportunity to include RS support for what the article says about this deceased gentleman. That is, what is currently in this article isn't really up to par with what I'd prefer to see merged. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Did some research, and added a bit more material from additional secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the only secondary coverage appears to be post-mortem and principally in connection with his death. Their coverage of pre-mortem information appears to be minimal and superficial (date of beirth, who congratulated him on his marriage, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A merge and redirect to True Family would be appropriate if the text/references are sufficiently relevant for treatment there. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but only after a merge is completed. You may ignore my comments if you feel my 46 year membership in the Unification Church represents a conflict of interest. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has some good sources, including Christianity Today. The incident of Mr. Moon's death seems to have been a notable event which merits a WP article. This is not really a biography, but still a worthwhile article. Borock (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Miranda[edit]

I'm getting tired of maintaining this article. It's an autobiography of an advertiser with, or so the article claims, some professional recognition although the links provided are all broken. It's recently been targeted by slanderous vandalism. So basically we're maintaining an outdated resume for an individual who probably falls short of the WP:BIO requirements and we have to maintain it actively because of WP:BLP concerns. Waste of time imo. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment difficulty in maintaining an article is no reason for deletion. It can be a reason for protection. DGG (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason for deletion given. Suggest page protection. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sort of take issue with the statement "no reason for deletion given". I am not saying that it should be deleted because it's difficult to maintain, I'm saying that the effort spent maintaining it is absurd given the subject. As for reasons for deletion, let me restate them in short: fails WP:BIO, no substantive third-party coverage, article written by subject, difficulty in verifying that the subject did get the professional recognition (as opposed to, say, recognition of the agency she works for). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am seeing nothing that passes WP:BIO. I read her webiste and accompany resume and she's just a person who has had a string of jobs, one a few local industry awards, and is looking for another job. ==Crunch (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BIO is somewhat ambiguous about the weight of awards for purposes of establishing notability. On the one hand, it suggests a presumption of notability if a person "meet[s] any of the following standards," emphasis added, and includes the person having "received a notable award or honor" on the list. Ms. Miranda has received several: notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFF, surely the appropriate yardstick for an award's notability for purposes of WP:BIO is whether it meets WP:N itself, and the Lions Awards do. On the other hand, WP:BIO cautions that "meeting one or more [of the additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The most sensible reading of these two provisions, I think, is that while an award will not ordinarily establish notability by itself, it may push a case that's otherwise in the rough onto the fairway. The basic criterion is coverage in published secondary sources, and if "the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability"; minor coverage plus notable awards may suffice in lieu of minor coverage in lots of sources (or major coverage in a few sources), and the more notable the awards, the more trivial the additional coverage that can be made up for by the award(s). For example, winning a hugely notable award such as an oscar, even given otherwise trivial coverage, should ordinarily establish notability. Unfortunately, applying that approach here, Ms. Miranda. comes up short. I can't find even trivial coverage of her in "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Although my search wasn't comprehensive, the burden lies on the editor who adds material, not on s/he who would remove it. If coverage - even relatively insubstantial coverage, given the weight provided by the awards - in reliable sources can't be adduced, I support the nom. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Aitias // discussion 01:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia Tool & Die[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Valencia Tool & Die

Delete Unremarkable 3-year-run currently shutdown clud; prod was removed by creator -Zeus-^u_c 15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curious as to why Zeus finds entry on Valencia Tool & Die "unremarkable" any more than say a hot dog stand in Sydney Australia which I found on Wikipedia, or the Deaf Club which operated down the street from Tool & Die which is on Wikipedia? There is really not much to go on here except Zeus opinion, however, Zeus doesn't present any information about himself that would make him an expert on the subject. Was Zeus there? I have authored three books on Punk and underground artists and I was there, so again what makes this entry any more or less valuable than the entry for the Deaf Club or Punk Rock in California (which had a red link for Valencia Tool & Die prior to my writing the link). Do you want only general information on the subject or specific first person information? Belsipe (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC) belsipe[reply]

Comment. While I currently have no opinion on the deletion, I'd like to remind Belsipe that in this conversation I suggested he read WP:Notability and discussed some of the WP:COI issues he would have citing his own books as references for the club he managed. I suggest again that WP:Notability might answer some of your questions, as well as WP:OTHERSTUFF. HTH--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just as notable as a hot dog stand in Sydney. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what ChildofMidnight's comment is supposed to mean, but frankly I have to say that much of the comments I have read by Wikipedia's "editors" has been sniping and snarky in appearance. Perhaps I don't understand the culture and lingo, but the editors appear to be hiding behind some kind of Oz curtain. Your policy statements ask contributors not to take it your comments personally, however some of the comments seem to be intentionally rude. As far as the VT&D entry goes, you've worn me out. I wanted to make a contribution to Wikipedia and I'm happy to work with editors who aren't predisposed to denigrate what they don't really know about. What I was adding to the Punk in SF section were first person accounts. It seems you would prefer that someone who was not there reconstruct it instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belsipe (talk • contribs) 23:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want help you should ask for it. Instead you come and criticize people who know the rules and understand the process. We DO NOT want first hand accounts. That is opinion. Content and articles need to be based on reliable third party sources that are independent of a subject. You're welcome to read wp:notability and wp:coi (about conflicts of interest) for more information. I find it amusing that you think other people are snarky. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Hot Dog stands ARE notable. but...I digress. As to the Valencia Club. From reading the article one can sense the importance of the club within a certain circle. But that is how clubs are. They are famous for a brief moment, a year or two...three if they are lucky...and then the clients go elsewhere. But they have their day in the sun and become a part of the day to day history of a great American City. IMO that intitles the Valencia Tool & Die article to be a KEEP. Its really no different than a popular local TV show...Bozo's Circus, lets say!--Buster7 (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination may well be right, but I can't tell whether the coverage in the footnotes is significant independent coverage. If these are articles about the club, and the book has more than a few sentences, there may be notability, just not the recent notability that's readily available through Google. But by the same token, if the secondary sources barely mention the club in passing, I'd agree not notable. I simply don't have enough information. I'm concerned about the WP:BITE issue: editors filled up this guy's talk page with templates without ever welcoming him. It's not like he's vandalizing the encyclopedia. THF (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed...he was afforded a very rude welcoming which is not uncommon for newbie article creators. We tell them to be bold and then chastise them for mis-behaving.--Buster7 (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we (Wikipedians) show more concern and respect for outright vandals than we do for newbies. --Buster7 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like a fun place, seems quite notable from an art history viewpoint. And maybe San Francisco punk needs a category.... Regular hardcore thrash (genre) shows in 1981 are ahead of their time, avant garde, notable. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow the continued work of WP:Cleanup begun by User:THF that will result in a nicely encyclopodic and sourced article with NPOV and proper sourcing. There does seem to be enough WP:RS to WP:Verify its shortlived WP:Notability... and notability is not temporary. I will grant that it will need a major sandblasting, but it's do-able and there is no WP:DEADLINE to get it done (despite the arbitrary one set by an AfD). I understand and sympathyze with the author's angst, as his account has only been editing Wiki for one week and hardly has had time to learn the many ins and outs of Wiki expectations. And as User:ChildofMidnight points out, he would have been better served by asking for help.. which he is geting anyway. The article was prodded for deletion only 5 days after its creation AND the process of improving the article IS underway. Let the darn thing stay and be improved to meet all concerns. Deletion diminishes wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matt Lare[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. — Aitias // discussion 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Ayn Rand[edit]

the article consists of two snippets from scholarly reviews, 2 reviews does not make a book notable, neither does 10. the book is not notable, it is a minor work. perhaps in 30 years it will be major, but until then it is not notable. --Buridan (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The general notability guideline asserts that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Would the nominator care to explain how the references in the article are not reliable or independent, or how the coverage is not significant according to Wikipedia convention? Skomorokh 15:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. No opinion on the current version. The specific notability guideline for books requires, not only third party sources, but also that at least one of the sources be a "general interest" publication. Neither Teaching Philosophy nor The Review of Metaphysics sound like that. Also, without the blurb-like review excerpts, the article has very minimal content, which suggests that the instant article is using Wikipedia as a free web host for promotional purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline does not require that the book needs coverage in a general interest publication: please see the academic books segment. Even ignoring that, meeting the general notability guideline is sufficient for a topic to merit an article. Skomorokh 15:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the book mentioned, as is Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, in Ayn Rand's page. I'm not sure that there's enough separate material here apart from the blurb excerpts to justify a separate article, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the potential or current state of the On Ayn Rand article? Skomorokh 17:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes the book as a 104 page introduction to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. No, I'm not deeply impressed by its potential for expansion. To the extent that it is an accurate account, it's redundant to existing articles.

I will be perfectly honest about my biases: the depth of Wikipedia's coverage pf Ayn Rand and her followers tends to create the misleading impression that she is an important philosopher, when in fact Rand is a rather minor and unoriginal figure by the judgment of the large majority of academic philosophers. "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is."

Also note that the article's author is Agotthelf, apparently the author. This raises conflict of interest issues born out by the promotional blurbs in the article itself. (He apparently has not been notified of this AfD. I will fix.) While no doubt Prof. Gotthelf could make valuable contributions to our coverage of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, he would appear here to be tooting his own horn. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I can see the argument that this particular article might not grow beyond a stub; there could be room for a version of Bibliography of work on Objectivism with weightier prose. I can also agree that Rand is disproportionately covered relative to other philosophers (due IMO to the demographic similarity between those drawn to Objectivism and editing Wikipedia), but your conclusion is backward. We ought to be striving to expand our coverage of undercovered fields; there are dozens of notable topics in the secondary literature of philosophers like Deleuze, à Kempis, Husserl and so on. Rendering our coverage of Objectivism less comprehensive in order to even things out is cutting off the encyclopaedias nose to spite its face. Skomorokh 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Starting the ladder anew) Your point on the expandability of our coverage of non-Randian philosophers is well taken. Still, all this stub is telling me is that this small book is an introduction to Rand and her Objectivism. Unless the book becomes notable by advancing new interpretations of Rand and her philosophy, and the perspicuity of those new interpretations is recognized by neutral third parties, I don't see it as meriting an independent article. To the extent that it's a good introduction to Rand's own thought, it becomes a bad subject for an independent article: any expansion of the article would be a rehash of Objectivism, because that's what's in it.

Again, no secret about my bias. I take my basic ethics from Jesus, and my sense of the limitations of human reason from Arthur Schopenhauer. Rand's unintentionally instructive biography suggests Schopenhauerian themes that the rigors of lofty rationality are a mask that conceals the face of animal Will. That said, we should be delighted to have a published academic Rand expert as a contributor. But I don't see this article to ever have much potential to be anything other than a promotional stub. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote. Thanks to Skomorokh's heroic edits over the past couple days, it no longer reads like a promotional piece. His text establishes that this book has had some impact in the circle of Rand scholars. This still seems a fairly slender thread to hang notability on, but that may just be my bias talking. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this nomination just proves that any article, no matter how well referenced, can be deleted by editors who have done nothing to improve the article before nominating the article for deletion, in violation of the policy WP:PRESERVE. In addition to the already well referenced article, I found 6 google book references to this book. Ikip (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dr. Gotthelf has written several introductory books on philosophy, and this book would properly be placed under his article Allan_Gotthelf. The book, as a single item, does not meet notability on its own, alas, and the content might well be merged as noted. Note that this is specifically not proposing deletion. Collect (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate as to how the topic fails the notability guidelines? "Just not notable" rationales tend to be discounted by closing administrators. Regards, Skomorokh 18:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book could also be merged into the Ayn Rand or Objectivism (Ayn Rand) articles. Idag (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete A GoogleScholar search for this book returns only 18 hits, none of which are from major sources. I don't think this coverage is significant enough to make this subject notable, though I would support merging some of this information into another article. Idag (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete best merged into another article --Snowded TALK 20:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable book. I hope whoever closes this carefully reads the comments. Believing this subject should be merged into another article or thinking there is too much coverage of Ayn Rand related subjects are not justifications for deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it notable? Idag (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It meets the general notability guideline, Wikipedia's fundamental standard of inclusion. Examine the references - this is not even remotely ambiguous. Skomorokh 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinent policy requires the following:

"The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience."

There are only five separate references in the article. Three of those references are book reviews. Another reference mentions this book tangentially. The only reference to provide an, arguably, significant coverage of the book is Ryan, and that reference is a criticism of the book. Therefore, this book has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works (at least that's my understanding of the policy). Idag (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip's link, earlier on this page, contradicts that assertion. arimareiji (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet any of the criteria listed on Wikipedia:Notability (books). RMHED. 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to meet 1, 3, and 4. And only needs to meet one of the criteria. It's been covered substantially by reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Much of the criticism from editors on various Wikipedia articles relating to Rand or Objectivism have to do with a lack of academic or scholarly work on Rand. We should be welcoming these additions - particularly with the heavy traffic seen on pages relating to Rand and Objectivism. This book meets several of the specified requirements (see section on Academic books and it is a significant addition for the Objectivit movement.) Also, Allan Gotthelf is emeritus professor of philosophy at The College of New Jersey and visiting professor of history and philosophy of science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he has held the University's Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism since 2003 - this information is available from his Wikipedia page. His stature as an expert on Rand gives this book standing as per Wikipedia policy on notability for academics. See Google scholar for information on his books on Aristotle, or his contribution to the Wadsworth series on philosophers. --Steve (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Idag. I don't read this as meeting WP:BOOK or even coming close. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' This is not a afd related to Ayn Rand, it is about the merits of this book and this book alone. Please provide arguments relating to the notability of this book, if there is any, currently it is pretty far down the non-notable pile, and saying it is about Rand isn't really making a case as notability does not transfer. --Buridan (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Skomorokh has made some fairly substantial edits to the article, trying to make a case that it is notable. He's removed the blurby quotes, and his version essentially establishes that this is a book about Rand's philosophy by a Rand scholar, that has been reviewed by other Rand scholars. Whether this meets the books notability guideline is the current issue. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Ikip's link and Idag's policy quote wrt book notability. ("The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience.") arimareiji (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ayn Rand. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ayn Rand or Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Unlike the nominator, I don't expect that minor books on a currently-popular minor philosopher will become "major" "perhaps in 30 years". The COI issue also indicates a non-notable work, as does the tarting-up with review links. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Either to Ayn Rand or Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand), per previous two editors. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not critical of Objectivism and would not make more than half a line in the Rand article; merging makes very little sense. Skomorokh 19:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, it doesn't appear to merit much more than a couple of lines in another article, anyway. "Someone wrote X(source), however, others have been (criticism) of that analysis.(source), (source)." That's probably all that needs to be said. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup; anything more would be undue emphasis on a minor work. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which makes it a little disingenuous to call your proposal(s) merge. Skomorokh 19:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow you on that one, but attacking my motivations isn't going to persuade me. I'm willing to entertain other ideas, but I would prefer not to be attacked in the process. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out , no-one is attacking anyone. To use the term merge in an AfD context connotes an intention to see the material in question kept (albeit at a different location), which would not be the case here as practically none of it would be preserved. Skomorokh 20:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm chilled, but you said "disingenuous", which implies a lack of candor (straight from the dictionary). I'm not trying to deceive anyone. I'm just trying to preserve the parts of the article that might be useful. There is a selective merger process, also. A merger doesn't mean the entire contents of the page have to be removed. I probably could have more accurately just voted to delete the page and mentioned that many a line or two could be saved, but I wasn't trying to deceive anyone through a lack of candor, which is the meaning "disingenuous" carries. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no room in the Ayn Rand article to merge coverage of every book that covers her. But at least the merge voters realize that it isn't appropriate to delete articles on notable books. This isn't some self-published myspace work. How on earth would deletion make the encyclopedia better? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Editor:Skomorokh's comments, Editor:ikip's link establishing considerable coverage at a reliable source, and Editor:Steve's establishing the prominence of the author. --Buster7 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per improvements and sourcing since original nomination. Kudos to all those that made contributions that Improve Wikipedia. Well done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:BOOK standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- Academic books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick.

AfD hero (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Objectivism This is nothing more than a couple of paragraphs from the "criticism" section of that article. Mangoe (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you link to a disambiguation page. Secondly, there is no "criticism" section in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article. Thirdly, this article does not take content from any other page on Wikipedia, but is rather written from the secondary sources it cites. Skomorokh 00:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 11:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radicals for Capitalism[edit]

minor book, not notable, does not meet book criteria for notability --Buridan (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "book criteria for notability" asserts that a sufficient criterion for the notability of a book is if:

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
— Wikipedia:Notability (books)

Would the nominator care to explain how the references in the article are deficient in this respect? Skomorokh 15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a few random reviews is not significant coverage for notability. It still needs to be notable, the reviews posted are primarily vanity reviews, not marking the particular text as notable. The book is cited 5 times in google scholar, were it notable, that would be 300-500 minimally if not more. Perhaps in 20 years it will be notable, but as it stands this book is a minor work. --Buridan (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first review reviews the acknowledgements. The second review describes the 600 page book reading as a 200 page novel, pretty damning. The third is an interview with the author, the notability of the author does not transfer to the book, The NYT review debates the history then calls a section of the book 'most troubling' again, the review is pretty damning, the city journal gives a solid review of the merits of the book, but doesn't mention anywhere that it should be read or is a notable contribution, the WT review calls it readable and enjoyable, The Sandiego newspaper explicitly says it is not a review, nor a recommendation, but calls it a 'solid work' and Boaz calls it a fine work of political history.... Given that none of the reviews or citations even seem to indicate much notability at all, in fact the last one is mostly just a reference to his Boaz's Cato blog, I'm not sure there is any notability here. Just base reviews for and against, only two saying it should be read at all. I think this is merely citation loading trying to appear as verifiable notability, but in the end it is just verified that it is another book. --Buridan (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to investigate the sources, I don't disagree with your assessment of the critical reception. I do believe, however, that you misunderstand the concept of notability in the context of Wikipedia. For a topic to be "notable" does not mean that it is important, it means that a neutral, reliably sourced article of a decent length can be written about it. Our notability guidelines are very clear on this point: the very fact that the book has had non-trivial third party coverage in reliable sources confers it notability. Skomorokh 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that these are trivial reviews, none indicates any sense of notability beyond... yet another books.--Buridan (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with some regret. This would appear to be a history of economanic pseudo-libertarianism that has nevertheless been noted and reviewed by the New York Times, The Guardian, and other disinterested general interest publications. It would therefore appear to be notable under the relevant specific guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. David Boaz is (also) a reliable source, have listened to him on several occasions. Ottre 15:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep - A review of the book in the New York Times meets criteria 1 of WP:BK. Not to mention it's also been reviewed in the LA Times, The Guardian, and the Washington Times, as noted in the article. If those don't qualify as "serving a general audience" I don't know what does. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews in the New York Times, The Guardian, the Washington Times, and the San Diego Union-Tribune, and discussion in a Los Angeles Times editorial are enough to satisfy the first criterion of WP:BK. Thechuck 2112 (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with many sources available. Obviously meets WP:BK with multiple reviews in a variety of main stream sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Nothing like AFD to get something done. Thanks Eastmain, come visit us over at WP:PNT whenever you have a spare few minutes Jac16888 ^Talk 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jadran (ship)[edit]

Article about a boat of some sort. Has awaited translation at WP:PNT for more than two weeks and prod was removed for no real reason Jac16888 ^Talk 14:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I translated the article with assistance from Google Translate. This is a sailing ship intended as a training ship for naval cadets, I think. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is the actual reason for the proposed deletion? It certainly needs a lot of cleanup work, but a ship that has served continuously from 1933 is notable enough to have an article. Constantine ✍ 15:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting article for a current ship of the Montenegro Navy - Needs improvement not deletion Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for the translation Eastmain. This appears to be a notable ship. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larkhall Golf Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Larkhall Golf Club

Appears to be an unremarkable municipal golf course with substantially hoax content Brammarb (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG with no reliable sources establishing notability, the story of its creation is obviously a hoax. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. I have failed to track down any significant coverage other than directory entries. I have cut the page back to what can be verified. TerriersFan (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The popularity of Anime in America[edit]

Someone's research paper that presents the researcher's opinions about the popularity of anime in North America. Most of the article is unverifiable and the sources that are used either don't support the statements they are cited for or are unreliable. See article's talk page for more details about the evaluation of sources. Original prod was seconded by two other editors before being deprodded by an anon editor under the pretense that the subject is "very important". Farix (Talk) 13:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one of the prod endorsers. As nom already notes, this is someone's personal research paper, lacking in verifiability and a worldwide view. Topic already better and more properly covered where relevant in anime. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web host nor a personal self-publishing house. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No one answered the original issue or the PoV issue in the discussion page. IP just say it's very important but fail to assert its importance. Lack sources & references, doesn't cover properly the last decades. Sentence like : Its rise to the popular status it has achieved in America today is no surprise to anyone who has been tracking it since its humble beginnings. is pure propaganda. Another bad point is that this article is its focus on America which not WP:WORLDVIEW, at this rate people can start similar article in for other continents, countries, states, regions.... The IP say it's very important for who, just the Americans readers ? or the whole Wikipedia community and worldwide readers ? KrebMarkt 14:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could theoretically be a useful article, but it would be hard to do, and it would involve starting completely over. --Masamage ♫ 14:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not e opposed to start over as long it doesn't end as an article from and for Americans readers. Edit stupid typo KrebMarkt 14:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welllll, some of those are okay when the subject becomes too large and needs to be broken up geographically. The featured articles include lots of kind of obscure subjects by country: Slate industry in Wales, Prostitution in the People's Republic of China, Same-sex marriage in Spain, Toilets in Japan, Renewable energy in Scotland, and Amateur radio in India are just a few, and it should be noted that their existence does not merit an article about Toilets in the United States. If the popularity of anime in the US specifically becomes a unique enough subject, as compared with its popularity everywhere else, it could easily merit an article. I have no idea whether or not it has, though. I would probably have to see the article to judge. What I do know is this ain't it. --Masamage ♫ 15:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the questionable sourcing, viewpoint, and neutrality as per previous mentions. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding that this is an essay, "Popularity of anime in _______ (geographical location) " is not a good topic, unless there's a significant difference in its reception in one place (in this case, the USA) and that anywhere else in the world. Author has some useful information, and should consider contibuting to the existing article History of anime. Mandsford (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page, just delete some of it perhaps. Keep the basic confirmable facts, and give the article time to develop on its own. The rise of anime in America, is a significant subject. As I recall, the most popular articles on wikipedia, a significant portion of the total hits it gets, are in the anime/manga department. Surely other editors will be able to help with this. Dream Focus (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to remind you that Editors != Scholars. We are not scholars even less scholars focused in the history of anime in America. As far as we go that the level of skill required to make it a NPOV & WP:V article and that is without solving a single bit the original research issue. Unless i mistaken academic papers or publications about the anime phenomenon in America aren't that many. KrebMarkt 07:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one of the prod endorsers, I find it factually inaccurate. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual inaccuracy is NOT a reason to delete an article. That said, the other reasons given are. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bobak (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is original research. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 as blatant misinformation. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarettes and Lies[edit]

Hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Abbas Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it's a hoax, why not propose it be speedy'd under G1? Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean G3, which is blatant misinformation. G1 is patent nonsense. I don't think it's either. MuZemike 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The parent article seems to be heading for a delete, so these will take care of themselves under A9. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbracollins (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain why. This is a discussion, not a vote. MuZemike 00:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party sources WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jclemens (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Abbas[edit]

Lame hoax. An "international supermodel" with o Google news hits? A "multi-platinum album" that only seems to be mentioned on MySpace? No references that are reliable sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also these: Last request (Alfred Abbas Song) & Cigarettes and Lies Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See also Special:Contributions/65.1.242.131. SHould be clear enough. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Pahari Sahib 16:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Middayexpress (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added references. I think the original writer of this article may have inflated sales. but Alfred Abbas is in fact a model, singer, acotor, and pageant contestant here in the Philippines. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|--Barbracollins (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)]] comment added by Barbracollins (talk • contribs) 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Diagnostic Bioinformatics Tool[edit]

Article is also orphaned and has no reliable sources to build on [22][23] Based on the text, this appears to be an attempt to promotion a tool that is still in development. Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Graduate student project on his web page, and no more notable than he would be himself. Perhaps someday. DGG (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11 Blatantly promotional, product still under development. Ray (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an advertisement that, even with a fundamental re-write, would be non-notable. (Until and unless it actually comes into being and becomes at least moderately popular, of course). Anaxial (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G11and WP:CSD#G12, copyright violation of a game wiki and obvious spam. Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thesicillianmafia.com[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide, a tutorial, etc. » \ / (⁂) 11:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clububba[edit]

Short-lived band which did not tour, nor release anything. Punkmorten (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't see any notability. Cool name, though! I can't stop saying "clububba"! J L G 4 1 0 4 11:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, I don't see any notability either.Bulgakoff (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No tours, no releases, no notable members, no notability. Blatant failure of WP:MUSIC, beyond having a catchy name. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GHV2 Remixed: The Best of 1991–2001[edit]

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo release only, the information on this page has already been merged into the article for GHV2 by another editor Paul75 (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - info is already on the GHV2 page. JWAD ^talk 17:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable demo WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable demo, did not chart. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sindhi people. MBisanz ^talk 07:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhi ethnicity[edit]

article is a POV fork from Sindhi people which has been protected after an edit war over POV material Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sindhi people. Also, I think you should resolve your differences with Skatergal via discussion or mediation rather than at AfD.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at her talk page, and at the edit history, you will see that I have made numerous attempts to start a discussion, all of which have been refused. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation, then?--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no use if she won't open her mouth, apart from edit summaries. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration, then?

Her article on the Sindhi appeared highly well-informed to me -- or at least, it did. (I notice the article's disappeared in what would appear to be a very early AfD closure, except that the debate's still running.) It was undoubtedly a PoV fork on the Sindhi People article, but then the Sindhi People article appears to have NPoV issues of its own, and I feel some kind of merger of the two would result in a more complete, neutral, and accurate article.

I also think it would be better if the person who blanked the article under discussion would please un-blank it until the AfD has run its course.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely well-informed. I also agree with you that a compromise is needed on the Sindhi People article, even though the current protected version is mainly my work. That said, we're dealing with someone who will not accept that her version might not be perfect, and warns non-Sindhis to stay away from it. I'm pretty sure that any arbitration will result in her being blocked, which I don't want. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Aniello[edit]

Vanity article eg. "He is known as a photographer to a crowd of jet-setters, world's power players and companies" (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobimartire positive IP check and investigation. Many of the notability claims in the article appear to be unverifiable, maybe even bogus. Google turning up mostly blogs. PROD tags were repeatedely removed by the anonymous article editor (Miami based IP address). Related article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami Golf Journal deleted for non-notability JamesBurns (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a non-notable photographer to me. Richard Hock (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur. Loanmarkes only edits were creation and editing of this page.--Elvey (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camelia Voin[edit]

Non notable. Still a (doctoral) student. She is obviously talented and may well become notable in the future, but apparently not notable yet. We have a list of roles and a statement that "She performs both in the US and Europe, as soloist in opera as well as in oratorio." but no engagements with professional companies are identified. Sources are local media reviews that probably don't imply notability. Maybe in a couple of years she will have made it and we can have an article? Klein zach 06:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I don't have much time to search right now but I did find this article [24] which lists her as the winner of several notable competitions and gives performing credits for such prestegious houses as La Scala.Nrswanson (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source 'www.inlandempire.us' claims "She has performed with opera houses such as Teatro Gayarre in Spain, Teatro alla Scala in Milan . . . ." but this isn't confirmed anywhere else. I've investigated and so far I've been unable to get any solid information. The competitions are of course student competitions . . . --Klein zach 23:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually she has won three professional competitions. The NATS competition, Palm Beach Opera competition and the Barry Alexander International Vocal Competition were all professional competitions. Although some of those competitions also have student categories, she's too old to have entered in those areas as a student (look at the age caps for them). She would have had to have won them on the professional level. The article also indicates that she was in the professional level for those competitions. The fact that she won the international NATS competition alone should be notable enough. However, I do think we need more sources for confirmation. If we can't find anything more concrete than I will switch to a weak delete.Nrswanson (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently inclined to delete unless something major pops up, like proof that Ms. Voin actually won First Prize in the NATS contest. She is at the bottom of the list of the 17 "winners" of the 2003 Palm Beach Opera Competition here, but winners can include those who also won some kind of minor scholarship or prize. She certainly isn't in their list of the top finalists here. The Barry Alexander competition is so far not a notable competition. It's only run for one year and has very little coverage. Winners are selected solely via submitted recordings.[25] There were 5 "first prize" winners listed in the professional category (including Ms. Voin) and 5 "second prize" winners [26] but no indication of how many actually competed overall. She was amongst the finalists at the 1998 Julian Gayarre Competition in Pamplona, but did not win either first or second prize.[27]. The theatres listed where she has performed are vague. She could have sung there in the chorus, or (as in the Teatro Gayarre) in a finalists' concert. If she had actually performed a leading role in a full opera in any of those theatres, I'm pretty sure the article (and her CV) would have specified the role and the date. There is definitely not enough significant coverage of her, apart from very local one. The Loma Linda Lyric Symphony is a community orchestra and her performances with them are often free concerts (with a "suggested donation") in churches etc. e.g.[28], [29]. Other local performances in operas are not with a full orchestra or a professional company, and are sometimes in abridged concert versions e.g. [30], [31], [32]. Like Kleinzach, I think she is obviously talented and may well become notable in the future, but she isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article yet. Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Changed my vote per Voceditenore.Nrswanson (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4, recreation. Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love money 3[edit]

Unsourced future television show. Second season in series has yet to complete run. No mention of third season in main article. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Too soon to even consider an article on this. The salting because these Celebreality-crufters just won't give up their dreams of limitless sequels to their shows. Nate • (chatter) 06:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --Klein zach 08:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources brought up at Afd are a start, but either were trivial in mention or related to the subject, thus possibly being good enough for WP:V but not helping article meet WP:GNG. Since there was the possibility of more substantial sources, I took it upon myself to investigate print archives and the materials available at my local university library and was able to only find a handful of sources, once again trivial (a mention in an obit a lady was a member of the church, or that a couple was married there, et al). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camberwell Baptist Church[edit]

Does not appear to be notable. Pretty much looks like a vanity page for a local church. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Klein zach 07:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this more notable than any other church? Not from what I can see. The measure of a church's work is not its fame, but rather its success in saving souls. Mandsford (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The church has been operational since the 1890s and is not lacking coverage to confirm its notability: [33], [34] and [35]. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable suburban church. None of the sources listed actually promotes or confirms notability. The first is an assortments of miscellaneous mentions in the NLA archives of The Melbourne Argus which document minutiae only - installation of a pipe organ, advertising services and other incidental, non-notable events. The second references an internally-produced brochure on the occasion of its 50th anniversary (dime-a-dozen for churches of this age around Australia). The third is an article penned by the pastor of the church for an internal publication. Murtoa (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails ~~WP:CHURCH~~ Non-commercial organizations, no independent notability other than ministering to its community. I am not convinced that Pastor Theo's citations, and its longevity, equate with notability. WWGB (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CHURCH is a previously rejected guideline, which is now an essay. Ikip (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A church over 100 years old is notable in my book. Does Editor:Mandsford require a tally of saved souls?...notable events? lets find some...--Buster7 (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you on automatic notability for venerable churches. When you think about it, just about every town in the world, big or small, has a house of worship that is over 100 years old. As for the tally of saved souls, I believe that's up to "The Great Closing Administrator in the Sky". Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing administrator please note Several references and additions have been added since this page was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Buster7 and Pastor, several references have now been added. Ikip (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding sources to assert notability is flawed if those sources document trivial events. The three recently-added references don't advance notability claims in my view. Two of them simply show that the church has been used to hold public meetings - it's not clear that the meetings related to the church - it simply might be that the church's facilities were hired. In any case, the fact that two barely notable meetings were held there is not notable in the life of the church and shouldn't be part of the article. The third reference merely documents the 50th anniversary of the church. The fact that the church has been around 100+ years isn't in itself notable in my view. Murtoa (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In almost every deletion debate there is a nominator who ignores the policy WP:PRESERVE, and does not attempt to work with the editors and creators to add additional sources to the article before putting the article up for deletion. The article put up for deletion is almost always created by a new user. The nominator puts the article up for deletion citing notability. Editors then attempt to save the article by adding sources, doing what was supposed to be done by the nominator in the first place. The nominator then complains that the sources are not good enough. Through this entire process, the nominator's sole "contribution" to the article is a deletion template, and complaining about other editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor: Murtoa...please point out the vandalism. I"m missing it. Your requests for citations are a bit stringent. Most churches have a ministry, most churches attend to the needs of the young and old and affirmed, etc. This seems to be a small, out-of-the way church. Why would you ask for a citation re:# of followers, etc. It seems, at some point in the church's 110 year history there were 400 followers. Show's some success at saving souls, don't you think? If the pastor can provide some information, I suggest he do so. Considering the topic, I agree there may be a POV at work here. But I'm not sure if it's in the article or the editors trying to burn this church down.--Buster7 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about the nominator? We should be discussing the merits of the article, not one another. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i contacted the church via email. we will see what turns up. thanks for your hard work explodicle. Ikip (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having trawled through Google without success, I think that the brochure on the 50th anniversary could turn up some worthwhile info; otherwise the current sources are weak. To be fair I'm not really familiar with any general consensus that a 100-year old church is notable or not; maybe it is. Buster7, the content I considered vandalism was "Camberwell Baptist Church is now being revitalised with an influx of White Australians." If not vandalism, it's a really weird statement with no basis in fact and I found it somewhat offensive. Ikip, you appear to be confusing the nominator with me. I did not nominate the article, but stand by the assertion that sources that refer to the church premises being hired for non-notable meetings don't advance the notability of the article. However, by my recent edits of the article I've tried to Wikify it by removing POV statements and pointing out where sources are desperately required. Maybe I've been over zealous, and hopefully some source documents like the 50th anniversary brochure (which unfortunately still won't be secondary or independent of the subject) may assist. Murtoa (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Murtoa...I made that entry re:White Australians and I fervently apologize if it was offensive. That was not my intent. It came from one of the google sites that I found. ...(http://www.crossover.net.au/content/documents/camberwell%20Bapt%E2%80%A6rch%20article.pdf) In fact now I remember that the google reference called them "anglo's' which I changed to WA. I thought I "softened" it--but I guess not. Again, My apologies. Thanks for your efforts to svae the article.--Buster7 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a picture of the corroboree tree that used to stand in Camberwell and have linked it. However, the article needs to be rewritten to remove sections that have been taken word-for-word from the Crossover article. Murtoa (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The senior pastor just responded to my email inquiry, I won't post his response, since he did not give me permission, but I will post two lines: "I find 'notoriety' a strange criterion given many of the organisations and people listed on Wikipedia...Our church does not need saving via Wikipedia! We have been going for 118 years and are doing fine!!" he did not provide any additional references. Ikip (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not enough solid info to set this church apart from others in essentially the same place over the years, and Camberwell, Victoria has a WP article, and is presumably notable for residents etc. This will preserve the actual content of the article, and allow, I hope, for the main article to be improved (which it looks like it needs). Win-win. Collect (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it looks like the main issue here is whether or not the sources meet the notability criteria. I've started a section below to examine them, please add any you find or comment on them below. Right now I'm leaning towards keep to err on the side of caution, but I'm ok with merging too. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Camberwell, Victoria. It would be a pity to lose the information about this rather historic church. A merge would preserve the history and provide access to the information in an appropriate context. The citations haven't yet been found to support independent notability, but it has come ntoability and is worth including. This would allow for future independence if good sources are found or emerge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhile we are on the subject, maybe someone can explain to me why articles about churches (and high schools) are less notable, less worthy, less encyclopedic, than articles about the latest Anime character or the third show of the second season of Battlestar Gallactica? I appreciate that we are working on saving the article and I agree it should be merged rather than lost.--Buster7 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The challenge is to find appropriate sources, which is less straightforward for these topics than more contemporary topics. It means footwork and hunting through libraries rather than banging away at a keyboard. Murtoa (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator has since added further references, which ideally require verification which might be challenging. Murtoa (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Buster, High Schools are almost always kept now, whether there are independent sources to establish notability or not. And pop culture topics are often targeted for deletion after their heyday. There doesn't seem to be much coverage from reliable sources on children's cartoons and transforming robots. As far as churches go, common sense would suggest that those older than 100 years are likely to have some notability, but if no legitimate sources can be found there's not much to meet the notability guidelines or that can be reliably verified. So keeping it around in merged form until more substantial sources are uncovered seems a reasonable compromise. My frustration is that there are arbitrary inclusion criteria like ALL Olympic and professional athletes, but good luck getting fairly accomplsihed college athletes in. Which I think can be a bit awkward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ ED:ChildofMidnight...not to contradict you but just to let you know. Ive been involved in attempts to speedy delete 2 new high school articles in the past couple of weeks. I just ran across a "speedy deletionist editor" with a long trail of angry newbies on his/her talk...all related to deletion of school articles. So...the trend continues...--Buster7 (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Camberwell, Victoria. The article is quite good, but that doesn't change the fact that most of the coverage is incidental and routine, and thus doesn't really establish notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, churches tend to be notable. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a spiritual sense, sure. In the sense of Wikipedia notability, no. Mandsford (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with haste Historical notability has been Wp:Verified. All wikipedians should take WP:CSB to heart. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which source do you think establishes notability? In what way do you think systemic bias has affected this discussion? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1059773

Does anyone have any text from this book so we can check it? --Explodicle (T/C) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolfe, Peter (June 6, 2006). "We'll keep fighting Camberwell Junction protesters answer rally call". Progress Leader.

Does anyone have a copy of this so we can check it? --Explodicle (T/C) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the church located close to Camberwell Junction, it's very likely that the venue for the rally was chosen on the basis of its central location, rather than anything related to the activities of the church. It would be unusual for a church to get involved with a town planning issue and I still consider this reference adds nothing to the notability or the background of the church. Most churches in Melbourne hire their halls etc to the public, and I suspect the only difference in this case is that the rally itself featured briefly in the media. Murtoa (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://vgroup.wordpress.com/category/article/monash-journal/

This appears to be a self-published source on Wordpress, so we shouldn't even use it. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A meeting held in the church? So? WWGB (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.crossover.net.au/content/documents/Camberwell%20Bapt%E2%80%A6rch%20article.pdf

This is a great source, but since it's affiliated with the subject, it doesn't establish notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional material written by the pastor of the church. Completely fails WP:SOURCES. WWGB (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I'm not sure what this article is here for. Elm-39 - T/C 16:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry and as such may be useful to someone. Black Kite 18:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is really no point in hanging onto a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry of a relatively recent slang term. It cannot be turned into anything else, and soft redirects should be used sparingly. B.Wind (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is there policy somewhere stating that soft redirects to wiktionary should be used sparingly? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful soft redirect to Wiktionary. The slang terms are one of the more useful uses for soft redirects, as they are often pages that regularly get dictionary definitions added to them. A soft redirect serves to point the user to the proper place for such definition pages, Wiktionary. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - While this AFD has been open several days, it does not appear to have ever actually been listed on a daily AFD listing. As such, it's surprising it's gotten even this many !votes in the time. I've now listed it on today's listing log, allowing for official visability of the AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This term has been around for years, is still in common use, and is a viable Wikipedia search. And frankly, the soft redirect likely forestalls a really thin article being attempted on the topic. Townlake (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete in present form. I think it's entered culture enough to merit an article. You don't hear it that much in Southern California but people from other areas of the US used it quite widely. That having been said is it a common practice to have a blank article up for AFD? We should at least have some context to !vote on besides a soft redir to a wiktionary. I think Cool Beans may have potential for an article, but nothing's there yet so I have to, however hesitantly, !vote for Delete Valley2city^‽ 07:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per User:Valley2city. --Klein zach 08:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This was a full article (maybe stub) from 2006 to 00:05, February 21, 2008. At that time it was converted to the soft-redirect, and it has been policed for vandalism since then. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I don't know the soft-redirect policies, but they should probably govern the article if it's going to remain a soft-redirect. I'm still not sure that phrases need to be shunned from wikipedia just because they can go on the Wiktionary side. Notability's what counts and i doubt it'll be hard to find reliable sources for this phrase. Maybe the original article pre-soft-redirect (which did have a link to Wiktionary) should be restored. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Likely search term on Wikipedia so it should not be a redlink. I'm in favour of most or all dicdefs being soft redirects to Wiktionary.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary per the comments above. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never seen an article that has so many different people obsessed with reverting edits. The last time that it had something to say was almost a year ago when it looked like [36]. Since then, there's a determined effort to replace the article with "Wikipedia does not have an encyclopedia article for Cool beans. You may want to search Wiktionary for "cool beans" instead for a dictionary entry". No opinion about whether there should be an encyclopedia article for cool beans, but if the consensus ends up being that there should -- live with it, fellas. Mandsford (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- That's interesting stuff, at least if you're a language nerd (which I am); but the content was mostly etymological, which I feel is more appropriate for wiktionary than wikipedia.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlyn Porter[edit]

Article is little more than a resume of awards with a link to her commercial website. Jvr725 03:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep- notable subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.21.241 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable subject [37], although I would be happy to change this recommendation if even half of the awards could be verified. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Linguist. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Linguist. Is there an echo in here?--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw the Adirondack Life contest-winning photo and it was good, but that doesn't justify an article yet. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Sorenson[edit]

Does not appear to be notable and contains little, if any, encyclopedic content. Jvr725 03:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete This is just a story in a book. No evidence of real-world notability. Redddogg (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real assertion of notability in the article, and I can't find anything to establish notability. [38] LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete = I did Google, Gnews, and Gscholar searches when I put this article up for PROD a couple of weeks ago and I found the same lack of sources that LinguistAtLarge did. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arrival (ABBA album). MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I Kissed the Teacher[edit]

fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Album track only, not released as a single. Paul75 (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arrival (ABBA album). I don't think there are enough sources [39] to establish individual notability for this song per WP:NSONGS. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable album track WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something here, but how could the song have a video if it wasn't released as a single? (If that can be answered to my satisfaction, I'll vote to merge and/or redirect as a plausible search term. Otherwise keep) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What would prevent the band from making a video for a non-single? Keep in mind that ABBA was making videos during the pre-MTV era when many musicians were not making videos at all, and there was no necessary assumption that each single corresponded to a video and vice versa. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My sentiments Metro. Music videos and songs/singles are mutually exclusive. JamesBurns (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable song from one of the most notable bands of all time. Stifle (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article lists four cover versions, which itself is enough to establish notability. It was also deemed important enough to the band's repetoire to be included on their More ABBA Gold: More ABBA Hits compilation. Certainly not the most notable Abba song, but notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Rlendog (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable track, did not chart. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The_Winner_Takes_It_All. MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine (song)[edit]

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. B side track only, never released as a single in its own right Paul75 (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable b-side WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information that the song was originally intended for Supertrooper instead of a single B side is notable information that should be covered. If that can be done elsewhere without messing up the target article, merge, otherwise keep - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Whether it was once considered for the Super Trouper album or not is immaterial, it still fails Wikipedia guidelines as outlined at WP:NSONGS. The information can easily be assimilated into the Super Trouper article. Paul75 (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: We have a WP:BK guideline that has a provision to cover any work by a widely notable author. I think that extending this to notable musical groups like the Beatles and ABBA would make sense. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines that exist on songs and albums is quite satisfactory. JamesBurns (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable track, did not chart. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Way Old Friends Do[edit]

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Album track only, never released as a single. Paul75 (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Super Trouper (album), the album this song comes from. At minimum, this is a plausibe search term. -- saberwyn 06:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable album track WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Super Trouper (album) as plausible search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable track, did not chart. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andante, Andante[edit]

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Limited single release, no evidence of chart placings in the listed countries, the majority of which have been disallowed on Wikipedia per WP:BADCHARTS Paul75 (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the album Super Trouper (album), not enough notability or material for its own article. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-charting release. JamesBurns (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the album Super Trouper (album) as plausible search term and valid location for song information about songs on that album. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable track, did not chart. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 07:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuria 100 Shiki[edit]

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, no reviews, unlicensed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google News Archive search for the Japanese title. _dk (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion piece by a published author. _dk (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's one maybe reliable review. The Google hits are not clear if they are RS or not, and almost all seem to just be from two sites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you have to be aware of about Google News searches is that it also includes some blogs along with normal news cites. --Farix (Talk) 13:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's break down the Google News search results: there are 4 different sites (the ones on page two are off-topic), two of them (cinematopics.com and saddoboxing.com) are just mirroring off Amazon.co.jp. Of the remaining two, this is a PVC figure review under the hobby section from a news site of some renown, and the other one also reviews the Yuria figure, though it is by ASCII and it provides some introduction to the manga (the tone of the article isn't what you'd expect from a news article though) _dk (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete it, and when I Google the name in quotation marks, it has "45,800" results. By the rule of WP:common sense, I say Keep. Dream Focus (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete? There were two very good reasons given in the nomination. Once more, the number of google hits are irrelevant. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yuria 100 Shiki 8-ongoing series by Shigemitsu Harada & Nobuto Hagio. "Shigemitsu Harada" "Yuria 100 Shiki" => 435 Hits | "Nobuto Hagio" "Yuria 100 Shiki" 464 Hits on google. Most of them are COPYVIO. Not licensed in UK/US, France, Germany, Spain & Italy. I will wait for assessment of the reviews before my vote. KrebMarkt 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the lack of English language sources is a major problem, this has not stopped other similar articles from existing. I update chapter names, volumes and ISBN as information becomes available. I'm willing to add more detailed discriptions to the characters, but can't currently give external site references (other than perhaps fan sites), hence they would most likely be labeled as WP:OR. Lack of licencing outside of Japan is not an issiue to prevent it from being documented. Kodomo no Jikan, although licenced outside of the US, will never be released outside of Japan or officially translated into English, yet this article is plentily filled, mostly from information provided by readers who read translated/scanlated versions. Only real problems I see is obtaining images that do not violate WP:COPY. Jack Masamune (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kodomo no Jikan is notable. its controversy alone made it notable. --KrebMarkt 11:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kodomo no Jikan received lots of coverage by multiple reliable sources, which is the standard by which Wikipedia determines notability. Yuria 100 Shiki, however, hasn't received that type of coverage. And unless someone finds more reviews by reliable sources, I'm going to have to support delete for this one. --Farix (Talk) 13:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff existing is not a reason to keep (either alternate articles meet criteria, or simply haven't been gotten to yet) Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Access to illegal scanlation made this manga tangible, palatable for some public but sorry that not notability. KrebMarkt 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I honestly fail to see how a published, eight volume, ongoing series isn't notable in the truest sense of the term. Of course it's hard to find published reviews for it, it's a freakin' foreign series. This shit is absolutely pathetic. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The line must be draw somewhere and that somewhere is WP:BK. I think we can't have an article for every single manga series published in the world as we can't have an article for every single book published in the world. End of the story. KrebMarkt 23:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) We aren't wp:bk. 2) Why exactly can't we have an article for every manga and every book? Are we running out of space...? 76.116.247.15 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP:Manga, the project that has the long practice to assert notability of manga using WP:BK. Feel free to check our archives to learn since when it started. WP isn't also a catalog and even less the back-up website for stuff like manga-update. KrebMarkt 07:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) WP:BK is a notability guideline and slightly more lenient then WP:N. 2) We want to be able to write more then just a plot summary and character outline, and as KrebMarkt pointed out, we aren't a directory of everything that that exists or has existed. --Farix (Talk) 12:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the point behind deleting random manga series that were canceled after a handful of chapters that no one will ever speak of again, but this series has been running for three years, is still going and probably has no immediately encroaching end point. There's all that crap about "length/popularity doesn't matter", sure, but there really should be some discretion used here in assuming that it most likely has been talked about by Japanese reviewers, magazines and the like. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea that the point we just need someone who know Japanese enough to find 2 RS review and i call a Safe. I gave already my very best shot to find licensor in Europe so don't hate me. As an assessor of anime/manga article request department, i had to refuse a 45 vols series that didn't have ANN and scanlation so the notability through number of volume has its limit too. --KrebMarkt 11:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search for the Japanese title (ユリア100式) yields ~300,000 results, and looking past all the book/toy store links there seems to be metric ton of sites that mention it. I can't read them but there's bound to be a cornocopia of reviews and stuff here. An article doesn't need reliable sources to be kept, just sufficient likeliness that they exist, which is decent here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, an article needs reliable sources if it is to remain on Wikipedia. Just like when any statement is challenged, a reliable source must be presented in order for the statement to remain. (see WP:BURDEN) The number of Ghits is also irrelevant. What is relevant is if they turn up any reliable source. --Farix (Talk) 21:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 9/10 chance those hits do have reliable sources when you consider all the circumstances though. The issue here is that we can't read them and thus can't prove that they exist, not that they don't exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, yo. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well since we're quoting Wikipolicy, I could quote WP:NOTCLEANUP in saying that an article doesn't necceserely need to be well written/well referenced at this time, but can certainly be improved upon. What this article really needs is someone who can actually search in Japanese and add references to improve verification. I will not argue that in its current state the article is lacking references, but this can be certainly improved upon. Google hits are indeed not necceserely a sign for notability, however one should not limit notability to only English language world notability. Wikipedia is a global project, but struggles with non-english addition of content for these very reasons: the language barrier when adding references or trying to build the argument of notability.Jack Masamune (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for someone willing to look for RS Japanese references in WP:japan and guess what no good answer from there. I agree with WP:NOTCLEANUP but it can't be the excuse to keep articles that sole non-Japanese elements of notability are scanlations, forums, blog & websites related to scanlation. --KrebMarkt 18:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you all talk like nothing in Japanese was found....? I'm tearing up here. _dk (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That not the point. Most of the references hunters like me are limited some languages. At the present we can mostly do the research for French, English, German, Spanish & Italian. Blind spot is obviously Japanese so we are at deciding with what information we have. And YES i will very happy to have someone good enough in Japanese to have full a coverage before deciding an Afd but it isn't the case and i asked for assistance in the WP:Japan parent project but not to avail (That piss me off a lot). KrebMarkt 20:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying I have found some Japanese sources and put them right at the top of this post....Do you mean that you're having trouble determining the appropriateness of those sources? _dk (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Won't go into a discusssion about scanlation here, but there have been many examples where an anime or manga gains notability in English language realm through the process of fanbased translation, eventually resulting in it being officially translated at least in some form. Koi Kaze for example does not have an english manga, but does have an english anime. If i recall correctly, The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya was introduced and made popular in English language realm through fanlations and fansubbing. Staying with the discussion, it's very sad that no Japanese language speaker can be found to help. I keep with my opinion that the article should be kept however.Jack Masamune (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTPAPER, which is a policy — something WP:BK and WP:N are not. --Pixelface (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT I don't want WP:Manga ending into a catalog of every thing that have been released in the manga format. KrebMarkt 20:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dance (While The Music Still Goes On)[edit]

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Album track only, never released as a single (as the article itself states) Paul75 (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the album Waterloo (album). Not notable enough for its own article. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable album track WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONGS. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable track, did not chart. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Needs rewrite, and "see also" to possible "subsidiary" info. Appears to have RS and N. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Defense League[edit]

I originally heard about this group through Penn & Teller's episode about PETA. I ironically came here to look up more information on them... and found nothing to establish them as particularly noteworthy. If they are a PETA affiliate/subsidiary as the episode seemed to imply it could be simply redirected, but I'm not sure. Paliku (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said an affiliate/subsidiary of the Animal Liberation Front, not PETA itself. The episode discussed PETA's connections to the terrorist group (a la Rodney Coronado), hence my confusion. Paliku (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THere seem to be 1,000 news articles that mention this group: [40]. I dunno if that's good enough... someone would need to go through and see if any are in depth coverage or just passing mentions. I don't have time. --Movingday29 (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some cases where a chapter was in the news, like when the Los Angeles chapter protested against the manager of the animal control/shelter department, but my main concern is that there's nothing concrete about the main group to put here. Maybe it goes with the nature of the group. Paliku (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the chapters combined are notable, and the article could focus on describing the actions of various chapters? it would make more sense than having an individual page on a bunch of various chapters. --Movingday29 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources in Movingday29's search, although it can take a while to find them among the trivial ones. Any notability that the local chapters have is shared by the main group; the alternative is having articles for the weakly notable local chapters and ignoring the group the connects them, which would be poor. There are certainly plenty of LA Times articles about the LA chapter (particularly in 2005), and there are articles concerning the activities of other chapters too (as well as a constant background relating to the animal shelters that they operate). JulesH (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the practice for national organizations is we keep the article about the main organization, and very rarely the chapters. One could conceivably make an argument otherwise,but it seems the simplest way to do things. DGG (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or rewrite The only paragraph is a copyvio from http://chicago.animaldefense.info. If kept, the article needs a rewrite. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy[edit]

Removed prod. Mostly a dictionary definition, which WP isn't supposed to have. At that it appears to be an attempt to normalize a contemporary usage that (in my opinion) is still a misuse of the word. Hypocrisy is about dishonesty, not about failing to live up to one's ideals.

Now, I concede that it would probably be possible to clean this up, if anyone actually wanted to. But does anyone, and is it worth it? As it stands, the article represents an attempt at language reform. --Trovatore (talk)

Actually, that isn't true. Hypocrisy is failing to live up to one's ideals - or rather, professing views in which one does not actually hold true to (see Wiktionary definition, though it is slightly vague). For instance, if someone were to tell somebody to work harder despite themselves being lazy, that would be hypocrisy. I feel the subject itself is an interesting enough psychology to warrant an article, despite the policy that says otherwise. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on the article's talk page is exactly right, however. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This is a modern misuse of the word. It may eventually become standard, but the battle is not yet lost. A sincere profession, no matter how at odds with the speaker's own life, is not hypocritical.
- Take the case from the article: If I tell you not to smoke despite being a smoker myself, am I hypocritical? Well, it depends. If I'm a secret smoker, then likely (though not necessarily) yes. In that case it's likely (though not certain) that my advice not to smoke is based on my perception that people will think well of me because of the advice.
- On the other hand, if I take my old cigarette out of my mouth, use it to light a new one, and then in the next breath advise you not to smoke, am I being hypocritical? Almost certainly not. In that case everything is out in the open.
- There are several possible explanations for my behavior. I might consider that I am a lost cause, but there's still hope for you. I might want to quit, but haven't been able to summon the will. Or I might sincerely believe that the standards for me are and should be different from those for you. All of these attitudes are subject to various forms of criticism, but none of them is hypocritical, not if sincerely held and openly acknowledged. --Trovatore (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hypocrisy is an important enough concept to have its own article. I found it odd the Jesus' use of the word in the Gospels is not mentioned. This must be the most important influence on modern English usage. Redddogg (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as I sort of implied, I'm OK with a keep, if it can be cleaned up so as to give more weight to the (still preferred) definition related to insincerity, and less to the (modern, but still incorrect) definition related to incongruousness with the speaker's own actions. Are you willing and able to clean it up? Personally I'm not sure where to find material to discuss, beyond the dictionary def, and references to source it to. --Trovatore (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is off to a reasonable start: Discussion of the word, notation that its parallel means something different in France, origins of the word, some practical application of the concept of hypocrisy, and a few references at the end. Could the article be improved? Absolutely. Should it be deleted? No. There's no deadline to finish. Townlake (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing about French is one of the problems with the article -- it actually means the same thing in English, contrary to the (unsourced) claim in the article. I agree, it could be cleaned up. But even though there's no deadline, the current state of the article is doing harm, by supporting the incorrect usage. --Trovatore (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep there is plenty of material on hypocrisy to support a full article not a WP:DICDEF. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you would please address the point that the definition given is incorrect? Probably there is material available for discussing the referent of the correct definition, but can you find it? --Trovatore (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have rewritten the lede with sources. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neither of your sources supports the first clause, which asserts [h]ypocrisy is acting in a manner contradictory to one's professed beliefs and feelings. For the record, one of your sources is the Merriam–Webster def I cite below, and the other, from Princeton, states a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives. Both of these are at variance with the existing text, even after your rewrite. --Trovatore (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think the sources are just fine. Here's the first sentence of the lede: Hypocrisy is acting in a manner contradictory to one's professed beliefs and feelings, or conversely, expressing false beliefs and opinions in order to conceal one's real feelings or motives. and here are the sources: (for the first clause) a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings (for the second clause) a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives. If it were any more word-for-word than that, it would be plagiarism. So in all honesty, what exactly do you think is wrong with the definition? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 05:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, interesting: You looked up hypocrite at Merriam–Webster, whereas I looked up hypocrisy. You will see that the M–W definition for hypocrisy says nothing about acting in contradiction to one's stated beliefs. For some reason they have a different definition for hypocrite.
        
        In any case, even for hypocrite, they give it as the second definition. In my view this is an erroneous usage, but I suppose it has to be acknowledged, if the article is kept. It certainly should not be the principal focus, though. --Trovatore (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep my English textbook has over a page on the use of hypocrisy as a rhetorical device so reliable sources do exist on this topic. Icewedge (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And can you give us a summary of what it says? Is it talking about the "insincerity" version, or the "incongruous life" version?
- I am distressed that commentators are not engaging the point about the incorrect definition. Yes, this can be fixed, and is therefore ordinarily not an AfD issue. But given Wikipedia's visibility, I do not like to see searches turn up the incorrect one.
- For reference, here's Merriam—Webster's definition (used here as fair use; I doubt that would fly in the article itself):
  - a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
- Note that the key point is the pretense. There is nothing whatsoever about not holding oneself to the ideals one holds others to. It is entirely a question of pretending to be something different. --Trovatore (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest a WP:SNOW close. WP:DELETION says that if improving an article to fix the problems is practical, then it should not be deleted. I see no reason to believe fixing any issues with this article is inpractical. JulesH (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I will not object. I don't see very much value to an article at this title and had hoped to make the problems go away easily, but it appears that's not going to happen. It'll just have to be edited to remove the implication that this secondary (and in my opinion, indeed erroneous) usage is the main one. --Trovatore (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Linguist and JulesH in particular. Some cogent points were raised in this AfD.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though I do agree the page could use much better sourcing to tighten up the prose of the article. This page is quite susceptible to having personal opinion slipped in as fact. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The U[edit]

Articles that have been on the wiki for three years rarely come up for deletion and I suppose some will question my sanity for sending this to AfD. But let me make the case. This article has taken on many forms over these three years. For instance it was briefly [41] an essay glorifying the university of Utah. Mostly it's been a disambiguation page plagued by ~~pissing contests~~ edit wars about which universities are worthy of the title "The U" [42][43][44][45] and unverifiable content such as speculation about the history of usage [46][47]. In its current form, it contains dubious info and commentary about flagship universities. I believe that none of these versions serve the encyclopedia. The article has no incoming links and "The U" probably isn't a frequent search term. And if a reader does search for "The U", all he gets is, at best, an everchanging (and most likely misleading) list of universities which may or may not be referred to as "The U" in various part of the Unites States and, at worst, a piece of subjective original research. I cannot see a way to make this page valuable (although I guess it could redirect to University). Pichpich (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google doesn't show any significant use of the term "The U" in which it's not immediately followed by "of [A-Z]". Pburka (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this... it's just a phrase people (especially pro atheletes) sometimes use. It's not an actual encyclopedic concept, it belongs on Urban Dictionary. However, there possibly should be a redirect to University of Miami, since I think that's the default meaning... at least when you hear an NFL player explaining where he went to college. --Movingday29 (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per brianG, a redirect to University probably makes more sense. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Hogvillian (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really just a slang expression. You might as well have articles for "the city", "the mountain", "the ocean", etc. Redddogg (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way to go would be to redirect to University and then if needed, it can be edit protected. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once again, I'm with Linguist. This is a possible (or even likely) search term so Wikipedia shouldn't be a redlink when there's another option.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't mind keeping that redirect but I'd rather have this decision confirmed by AfD. Without that support, I'm pretty sure that there would be renewed problems. Pichpich (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University and probably protect to stop the inevitable edit wars. It's a plausible search term, and would inevitably be recreated anyway. Definitely shouldn't be redirected to a specific university as the term refers to different institutions in different regions (where I'm from "The U" almost always means University of Minnesota, but clearly that wouldn't be the case in, say, Utah). Per the nom, not convinced a disambiguation page is viable here, though I'm willing to change my mind if someone comes up with refs. BryanG (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to university. Redirects are cheap, but protect if needed. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vague definition that makes over-generalized terms. I would not redirect because not all big universities, not even all flagship universities use this term (for example University Wisconsin-Madison, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, University of California-Berkeley do not use this term). In addition, "The U" can refer to things having nothing to do with a university: U-shaped rounds, U-shaped objects, any number of radio stations with "U" in their call letters, etc. Connecting "The U" to more than a handful of universities lacks a broad view of the world. --Crunch (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would think that students at just about every university refer to their school informally as "The U." This is the sort of article that attracts endless edit wars, arguments, and vandalism, without providing useful information with reliable references. If deleted the article may need to be protected. As for that information on U. of Miami, please note that the article on The U (University of Miami) is completely unreferenced aside from a Youtube video. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sigh... I hadn't realized that the chest thumping disease had spread. There probably needs to be a separate AfD nomination for that one. Pichpich (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Oh please someone nom that. I am the closest thing in this AFD to a defender of "The U" being University of Miami but even I think that article needs to go. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University - Holds no value on its own. No references. What's next, an article on "The Y" with an explanation of people calling it that because of their pride in their local YMCA? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there an article on The Y. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets see, what else:

The A, The B, The C, The D, The E, The F, The G, The H, The I, The J, The K, The L, The M, The N, The O, The P, The Q, The R, The S, The T, The U, The V, The W, The X, The Y, The Z •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. Article meets BIO and with integration of sources, GNG. Horribly self-promoting tone needs to be excised, however. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Webster-Doyle[edit]

This has self-promotion written all over it. I don't think this guy is significant in any way. —Chowbok ☠ 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Self-promotional in tone, yes. Mostly rubbish, yes. "Biocognetic" a neologism with no clinical or research significance, yes. BUT... the guy has written a lot of books and has plenty of news coverage for those books. J L G 4 1 0 4 02:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The books are all self-published and I don't think they've had much news coverage.—Chowbok ☠ 02:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a ton of coverage, but sufficient, I think, especially in conjunction with presence of books on major suppliers. Hey, I don't like this kind of stuff, but he's made a name for himself, even if he's done it all by himself (including through self-publishing). J L G 4 1 0 4 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if someone is willing to brutally trim and rewrite the article in accordance to the subject's notability. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried precisely that-- "brutally" trimmed it (see history). Was reverted by nom. (Well, also reverted by CardinalDan using a bot, but that was my own fault for not indicating what I was up to in the edit summary). J L G 4 1 0 4 15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless anyone can prove that "biocognetic" is anything other than a cryptic self-help self-published concept, I don't consider the man who made it up to be notable. Richard Hock (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost a speedy delete as self-promotional. claims notability based on the notable people whose work he is interested in, nd a vagueseries of "endorsements", DGG (talk)
Delete per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. The article history shows it was written mainly by a PR company. The question of course is whether it could be re-written to be enclycopedic -- and I think the answer is that it can't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - what am I missing here? I didn't think being self-promotional alone was sufficient for deletion, nor whether one thinks the material is hogwash ("biocognetic"). I thought the criteria for notability, and hence inclusion, had mainly to do with media reach and saturation. My "keep" vote fully acknowledges both the self-promotional and the scientifically dubious aspects of the piece; however, any quick gsearch will show that he has not only published a lot of books ("self" or otherwise) but is widely reviewed in news media, in such papers as the Washington Post and the Boston Globe. This is not, in other words, just the self-promotional CV of some utterly non-notable figure. For those I always recommened "delete" (as with Jarrod Rogol). J L G 4 1 0 4 14:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there are reasons for exclusion as well as inclusion. If the article contains so much promotional material that it seems that such is its only purpose, and there is no easy way to rewrite it to be encyclopedic, then it can be speedily deleted. To me, it reads like an advertisement for his views, and I see no way to rewrite this article to show whatever notability there might be, DGG (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Delete~~. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not think he passes WP:PROF, but I have revised my recommendation because I think he does meet WP:BIO based on the media coverage. The PR angle indeed was way out of line, but I think that the revised (and massively reduced) version of the article that JLG4104 created should be kept. I restored JLG4104’s revision, which should stand; editors should "feel free to edit the article" (as indicated in the deletion template) while AfD discussion is taking place.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I cut it way down to what I believe is an acceptable stub. J L G 4 1 0 4 00:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my changes were reverted by Chowbok-- the nominator-- as not appropriate during the AfD. Could somebody explain why (because there certainly is no rule against it-- the rule is against blanking only). If the article was considered a load of self-promotional garbarge and in danger of deletion, but somebody could find a way to revise it-- albeit radically-- to make it a more acceptable article, then what's the problem? I made a good faith effort to both (a) save the article, and (b) make it acceptable (as a stub). I retain my keep vote. By any notability standard I understand, he is notable. Forget the rubbishy stuff-- he's got a number of books out which have received reviews in major press (which I already said above; sorry for repeating myself). J L G 4 1 0 4 12:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments JLG4104, and with Gwern below. Indeed, the original version was soooo self-promotional as to be a magnet for deletion requests and votes. Please see my comments above, under my revised recommendation. Let's see what the other editors think, but I believe that we should all thank you for your persistence.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the delete votes are either being distracted by the PR content, or haven't looked very hard for sources. A quick LexisNexis & Factiva search turns up several hits, like 'The Washington Post, Martial Arts for Peace; Black Belt Psychologist Teaches Kids How to Handle Bullies Without Fighting, Carol Krucoff, Special to The Washington Post, March 05, 1996, Tuesday, Final Edition, HEALTH; Pg. Z22; HEALTH PLUS, 841 words' (the entire article is on Doyle and his ideas - a pretty substantial mention), or a review of his book like 'Chop til you drop; R3 Martial Arts Reviews Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), August 19, 2000 Saturday, COMPUTERS; Icon; Pg. 10, 940 words, Lissa Christopher', or another article on his views (can't find the title), 'November 13, 1995, Monday, AM cycle, Domestic News, 832 words, By ANNE WALLACE, Associated Press Writer'; or short mentions in 'Program helps kids avoid fights, LINDA WEINER SELIGSON Daily Record staff, 500 words, 20 May 1994, York Daily Record', or just a short article like 'Book says don't get mad, get nice, AP 167 words, 20 October 1995, The Boston Globe' (the book is Doyle's of course); then there's this article on one of his courses, 'Karate secret stops bullies within reason, Steve Blow, 750 words, 20 March 1996, The Dallas Morning News, HOME FINAL, 37A'; another good one is 'HERE ARE SOME WAYS TO AVOID BEING BULLIED, LARRY AYLWARD, 731 words, 18 November 1995, The Plain Dealer, FINAL / ALL, 1E.' And I haven't included the trivial mentions (recommendations of his books, or a quote, they are usually), or searched more thoroughly. --Gwern (contribs) 21:24 13 February 2009 (GMT)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sandler[edit]

Weak delete. He doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE; "Academic All-American" isn't the same as "All-American", and while there is an unreferenced claim he was drafted by the NY Giants, he's not in any of the online football encyclopedias. And he doesn't quite pass WP:BIO: only 5 Google news hits (one has to screen out the hits for Adam Richard Sandler), none of which constitute significant independent coverage, other than a short squib in the Times for a recent wedding that would be wikipuffery to include. On the other hand, if there was a WP:LAWYER-NOTABILITY that was as permissive as WP:MUSIC, he'd make it by virtue of his partnership at a top law firm; he's a heck of a lot more notable than the fifth-rate garage bands and Pokemon characters we have articles on, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for keeping this one. The article used to have a notability tag dating from September 2007. I'd be happy to change my !vote if the Rescue Squad found something more than I have. THF (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'd appreciate a comment from those knowledgeable on the subject about the actual significance of "Academic all american" I see the paragraph in All-America and I wonder how much of a distinction it is. DGG (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big distinction. An All-American is someone who is at the highest level of the amateur athletic world in college or high school; it's like a "best eleven" in European football. An Academic All-American is someone who played football and had good grades. It's an honor, but not the type meant to be recognized by WP:ATHLETE. (But perhaps I'm overstating consensus about that.) THF (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Pop[edit]

Previously prodded, now recreated by a user with a very few days of Wikipedia experience. This article is about a 18-year old footballer for CFR II Cluj (CFR Cluj's reserve team) who has never played a single game in a fully professional league (such as the Romanian top flight), so failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following players (all from CFR II Cluj, and created by the same user) for the same exact reason:

--Angelo (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Jogurney (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Only the top flight in Romania is fully professional. None of these chaps have played at that level (or equivelent) so they fail WP:ATHLETE, and there's no indication that they pass other notability criteria. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 12:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Govvy (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Fail notability requirements per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN having not played senior international or professional competitive game and no other case for notability presented.--ClubOranje^T 10:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: while it is not required to notify the author or take any other steps, given that the author contested the PROD and was noted as a new user, a polite message as to what or why on their talk page would perhaps go a long way to encouraging positive contributions from a newbie --ClubOranje^T 10:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fails notability. DeMoN2009 17:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rise of the Ottoman Empire. Time for a bold merge as suggested. Books is good RS (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation of Ottoman Empire[edit]

The article basically goes over the more trivial aspects of Sultan Osman I, which can all be covered in his own article. Additionally, the title is written in improper grammar - it should read Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, however the page with that title actually redirects to this article. I am not suggesting that they be deleted - I actually want both Foundation of Ottoman Empire and Foundation of the Ottoman Empire to be redirected to Rise of the Ottoman Empire, which is the page that provides the information that people are likely looking for when they want to read about the empire's foundation. I tried to notify editors at WT:TURKEY and the article's talk page prior to considering AfD, but there are very few people who are keeping an eye on either of those pages, plus the consensus could potentially be too biased. Bringing it here for community imput. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Master&Expert (Talk) 01:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suggest you be bold and merge as per your request, without waiting. There is nothing contentious about your suggestion. It's eminently sensible. However, Rise is in dire need of inline citations. Ddawkins73 (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It also needs significant expansion, as do the relevant articles. I was thinking of doing that myself, but I wanted a consensus to back it up (not to be rude, but there have been some strong Turkish nationalists in the past, and I didn't want to get into a flame war with them. I'll probably even do that tomorrow, if nobody objects - for now, I need some sleep. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't tell what the article is about, although it seems that the original intent was to refer to a specific body of work called The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire. There was a book of that name in 1916 by an author named Herbert Gibbons, although the author appears to be talking about something older. If anyone would like to write an article about the Ottoman Chronicles (also referred to as Chronicle of the Ottoman Dynasty), it would be worthwhile. That was the "official record" compiled in Constantinople/Istanbul, something like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was for pre-1066 Brtiain. Mandsford (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - appears to be about a book of some kind, not an article about a the topic which the "rise of" article handles -"Foundation of the Ottoman Empire is one of the oldest sources regarding the establishment of the Ottoman Empire." -Ste vertigo 06:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Gattuso[edit]

Bog-standard American 'policy wonk'. Other than churning out papers, no sign of significant impact nor coverage. CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How exactly are his writings not significant? Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times are not exactly low impact publications. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- His writings in themselves do not establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. Independent third-party coverage in reliable sources do. There are many newspaper and magazine columnists who would make it into Wikipedia because of the lack of coverage of them by others. Has he been cited in a reliable source (and not simply reprint his article)? Showing such a citation would definitely help establish him for WP:AUTHOR. B.Wind (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - policy wonk, to be sure, but for better or worse he's been asked to contribute on many occasions to discussions in major news outlets, being an expert (on what, I don't know) at a major think tank, the Heritage Foundation. J L G 4 1 0 4 02:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - google scholar shows that his papers are well cited[48]. Seems to pass WP:ACADEMIC, if that's applicable. As an aside, I'm kind of shocked that there's no Policy wonk article. Pburka (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems notable per citations above. Hogvillian (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Robb (writer)[edit]

Unsourced, likely autobiography. Couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources after filtering for the identically-named producer. Merely writing for TV is not enough to meet inclusion criteria. Jfire (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails wp:Author --DFS454 (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Seems to fail WP:N and Google is not helping. I hate deleting a page of a person who seems to work with children, but criteria is criteria. §FreeRangeFrog 19:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Some of the shows he has apparently written scripts for are particularly notable. If his contribution to writing these shows rises to the level of "a major role in co-creating" them, then he passes the third criterion of WP:CREATIVE. But to pick an example, the TV series of The Neverending Story had 4 credited writers, and without knowing how much input Robb had it's hard to say whether his role was major or not. JulesH (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even with the resume-pushing on IMDB, doesn't rise to WP:CREATIVE. THF (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Falls short of WP:N, but it's a close call. Not enough on Google to convince me.7triton7 (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinoy[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article basically gives the meaning of the name complemented with a bit of original research. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 13:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I SD's this a while ago and it was contested. My original opinion holds. §FreeRangeFrog 19:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - how does this belong in an encyclopedia. I agree with nom on both counts. Why do people write these "first/last name in X language" articles? J L G 4 1 0 4 02:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC

Well honestly i think this deserves some sort of google link. If this article is transferred to wiki dictionary, will it still be shown up in a google search when "Cinoy" is typed in?)

If you want a page to show up in Google, it doesn't have to be on Wikipedia. It would still show up if it was on Wiktionary, but it would also be listed if it was on Urban Dictionary or your personal website or blog. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-English[edit]

Totally unreferenced, and useless: any salvageable content might be merged into European English A. di M. (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge the equivalent Eurospeak to European English. Eurospeak is at least sourced. Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. A related article, English as a lingua franca for Europe, was deleted almost a year ago. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense: "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." And to be excruciatingly fair, one might find material for an article on English imperfectly acquired by Europeans, but I don't know quite what such a sociolinguistic phenomenon would be called, nor whether it has any significance in the world of linguistic research. And, in any event, this article ain't it. J L G 4 1 0 4 02:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ostent[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, needs to be deleted and/or moved to Wiktionary. » \ / (⁂) 11:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wiktionary. Once it's there, it can be speedied under G5 A5 without wasting time on discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean G6? The article does not appear to have been created by a banned user. Guest9999 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake, I meant A5 (transwikified material) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wiktionary. It's a possible search term, so we shouldn't delete it outright, but there's not enough there to make an article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a soft redirect per S Marshall. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. nomination withdrawn Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KT Manu Musliar[edit]

The current article is abysmal, but being a secretary on a board with a WP article indicates to me there's more to this person than is written about. Since he recently died according to the article, people with access to the right language newspapers should be able to confirm whether he is notable. (I'm bringing this to AFD because I don't think the speedy tag was appropriate.) Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further evidence of notability presented. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently nobody has been watching this article. The AfD tag was removed on February 5 by the article creator. I restored it and put a warning on his/her talk page. And unless sources come up: Delete. --Crusio (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; May I point out, however, that also adding an AfD tag without an edit summary is just not done and itself can be considered serious vandalism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, negligible news coverage in English (search here). If there is coverage in other languages, fine -- but in the absence of that sort of evidence... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, speedy close Nominator wrote: "Since he recently died according to the article, people with access to the right language newspapers should be able to confirm whether he is notable." Wikipedia:Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Nominator made no indication that they search for references themselves. WP:PRESERVE a policy states, Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to (examples), Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" WP:POTENTIAL and WP:INTROTODELETE "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." The nominator is using an AfD to clean up the article and make other editors prove notability, instead of looking for these sources himself, and working with other editors to find sources first, against all of these rules. Therefore this AfD should be speedy closed. Ikip (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator in 15 minutes I did what no one else here was willing to do, I sourced the article, adding three references to this man from The Hindu, a newspaper with a subscription rate of 1.17 million. The article is well sourced now. Ikip (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Housecalls[edit]

This is a question of the WP:ONEVENT minnow and the whale. To the extent that the lawsuit is notable, it belongs under Best Buy or Geek Squad. Fine to userify the refs or the text so it can be added where appropriate. Bongo matic 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the minnow is notable for having fought back and succeeded in spite of the whale's overwhelming resources. Particularly in light of how many other small players with 'geek' in their names simply caved when imperial Geek Squad threatened them.--Atrask (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete Should go under Geek Squad. §FreeRangeFrog 19:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It says "no affiliation to Best Buy Company or Best Buy's Geek Squad". Its a different company. Seeing how many major news sources did articles about them, makes them notable. Dream Focus (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - against what might be an obvious case for inclusion, due to the media coverage criterion, I would argue that common sense says that a local company that happened to find themselves in a lawsuit that was covered by local media does not belong for any reason in an encyclopedia. What encyclopedic value is there to including such an article? If people want their services, they can consult a directory. If they want to learn about the lawsuit, they can find the coverage easily. J L G 4 1 0 4 02:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ONEVENT seems applicable. A Lawsuit would tend to be a Primary source as it is only a legal record of events that was instigated by the the parties involved, and should not be considered. Without these "references", I cannot see what makes them notable? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by this reasoning, IBM's loss of the rights to PC-DOS to the fledgeling Microsoft would have been suitable as a footnote in IBM's wiki, but wouldn't be adequately notable for Microsoft to have their own wiki? Is size all that matters here folks? When I open an encyclopedia, I do so in search of things I don't know. If the encyclopedia only contains things I do know (e.g. 'Geek squad is the biggest and most successful business of their kind'), then what value does it have? What is the value of singling out Best Buy/Geek Squad, and knighting them king of their industry, when the stories of the rest of the players in that industry aren't told, particularly stories like the Geek Housecalls story which sheds some light on the methods Geek Squad employed to achieve their position?--Atrask (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)— Atrask (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bongo matic 02:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)—Atrask (talk • contribs) has a conflict of interest with respect to this topic. Bongo matic 02:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Figueres Alario[edit]

Article does not meet WP:ATHLETE notability guidelines. Having looked through the references given, the "string of successes in triathlon, including many overall wins" and "a national title in swimming" are for amateur age-group level competition. Yboy83 (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:ATHLETE appears to both of these, because it's mostly links with little to no content, and hasn't competed at highest level of amateur sports.--Giants27 T C 00:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Stimmel[edit]

Some mentions in gnews archives, primarily around the film mentioned in the article "The Art of Failure"; IMDB entry here [49]; doesn't seem to quite meet WP:CREATIVE. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this meets WP:N, see [50] §FreeRangeFrog 20:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poorly written article is no reason to delete. It will benefit from a major rewrite and sourcing so as to improve wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Matthews (disambiguation)[edit]

Superfluous dab page, hatnotes on 2 relevant pages suffice. Page is orphaned and an unlikely search term Tassedethe (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid dab page - two valid bluelinks to two Wikipedia articles. B.Wind (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a reasonable dab page. (If deleted, the second page needs a hatnote; also, not sure that Mark Matthews (Seattle) is a useful rd.) There are other people named "Mark Matthews" in this site's articles already; see, for example, Sydney Theatre School, The Dentists, and Radio Tees. JJL (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the dab page has only two links, hatlinks should be placed on the two articles pointing to each other. A dab page is appropriate when there are three or more articles to disambiguate between. WP:DAB WP:HAT LinguistAtLarge • Msg 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like a reasonable dab page to have. Hogvillian (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, hatnotes suffice at the moment, but it's a common enough name for it to not be so for much longer. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the style guidelines. Currently, it's a navigational aid page that provides no navigational aid. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

59 Belts[edit]

Non notable company. All references appear to be published press releases. Tagishsimon (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Klein zach 08:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page has been edited almost exclusively by one editor, and in turn, that one editor's edits are almost exclusively to this page. No reliable secondary sources are cited. It appears to be a vanity or conflict of interest entry. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fish (disambiguation)[edit]

Superfluous dab page, hatnotes on 2 relevant pages suffice. Page is orphaned and an unlikely search term Tassedethe (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid dab page with two bluelinks to Wikipedia articles. B.Wind (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the dab page has only two links, hatlinks should be placed on the two articles pointing to each other. A dab page is appropriate when there are three or more articles to disambiguate between. WP:DAB WP:HAT LinguistAtLarge • Msg 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like a common enough name that others could be added in the future. Hogvillian (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Two items do not a dab page make. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Name is common enough to expect expansion in the future. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People might get confused, so you need a page to make sure they are reading about the right person. Otherwise they might think a famous fashion designer from decades past, got old and became a weatherman. Dream Focus (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very clear guideline at WP:DAB#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links? - "future expansion" is a highly silly reason for maintaining this, given that there's nothing stopping people recreating it once said other notable Michael Fishes actually exist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you'd rather spend two edits and server capacity by deleting an entry only to later recreate it, when its existence is not harmful in any possible way? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Had the prod not been needlessly contested we wouldn't be here. Now that we're here, we might as well do the right thing. Once again, I don't find the argument that it might be used in future when some other notable Michael Fish is born to be an argument which passes the laugh test. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good luck with the other 6000 two-line dab pages. B.Wind (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now. If future expansion warrants a disambiguation page, a disambiguation page can be created when warranted. The hatnote serves to keep readers from getting confused. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a third valid entry, Michael Fish (architect), which is linked in the article Overdale, Montreal. I've just done a quick search for sources, and it appears that this person is also sufficiently notable for his own article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the article on Michael Fish (architect), so with three entries, I'd suggest a keep for the disambiguation page. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it has utility. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lives card game[edit]

I recently cleaned up this article, but per this past version which includes the content "The player with the cards which total up to the highest value loses his life", my hoaxmeter spider sense started to tingle (there were additional incongruities, such as the mention of international competitions for a game played in a few Irish counties). The article needs reliable sourcing and assertions of notability. No Clusty hits (search). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —ww2censor (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources are provided and it's un-Googleable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is really an "how-to" article telling us how to play the game. There is nothing about its importance, in marked contrast to Poker and Bridge (game). Redddogg (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are absolutely no relevant Google hits if you search for "irish lives" and "power card". That doesn't absolutely prove that the game doesn't exist or isn't relevant, of course, but combined with the complete lack of sources it makes the idea of a game that is "popular in Dublin, Ireland and its surrounding counties" kind of dubious. Or to put it another way: there's absolutely no indication that the author of the article didn't make it up on the spot -- especially as the very first version of the article begins, "Lives is a deadly card game for two or more players that is popular in the canteen." It's only later that the game suddenly stopped being "deadly", turned into a supposedly popular Irish game, and gained the new name of "Irish Lives". Not buying it. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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