< December 31 January 2 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A3 - this is obvious vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek Air Force[edit]

Ancient Greek Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm pretty sure this is a hoax, albeit a well-done one. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geosurveillance[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH Plenty of references, but not for the thesis of the article. This is a postmodernist essay. John Nagle (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH is not a person. It's a shortcut to a Wikipedia policy statement on original research. Reading that may be helpful. --John Nagle (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Club and the Creatures[edit]

Summer Club and the Creatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity-press book. As I noted on the article on the author James A. Richards that I nommed for deletion, I googled the usabooknews.com award that the book won, and it appears to be mentioned solely in the context of self-published books. Autobiographical and unsourced. Author has created multiple pages about himself, his book, and his company. Graymornings(talk) 23:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. There have been good arguments on both sides of the debate, but what it comes down to is that this is either a borderline notability case, or an article that hasn't had time to develop in order to explain the reason why we need an article on Enrique Máximo García. In neither case is that reason for deletion right now. There is no clear consensus for deletion, though there is concern that the subject of the article hasn't had the notability explained and substantiated. Those interested in keeping this article are advised to help develop it. SilkTork *YES! 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Máximo García[edit]

Enrique Máximo García (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable academic as far as I can tell. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response - The article must establish notability, for example, according to WP:Prof or WP:N. It is not taken for granted; it must be demonstrated. There is no claim in the article of any major accomplishments. This AfD nomination does not remotely imply he was a bad person or led a life without merit. It simply questions whether he should be included in this encyclopedia. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - As you stated, this is an encyclopedia, and the main function of an encyclopedia is compilating all the knowledge mankind can gather and put it in disposal of everyone who could be interested or need it. Maybe in your environment, the person who my article talks about doesn't mind much, but in my whereabouts, he is an important character in our local culture, and the only reason for me to make an article about him in english is to make this information available for an ample range of people. I would be very grateful if you respected my point of view, so I could share this information with as much people as possible. Klaiver User talk:Klaiver 01: 25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Noone here is disrespecting your point of view. This process is not about points of view; it is about finding a consensus regarding verifiability, which is an objective state. Please review WP:CIVIL, namely where it recommends refraining from "ill-considered accusations of impropriety." Thanks. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the reason for having policies like those I mentioned above is to try to encourage more objective decision making. It's the article's responsibility for establishing notability. If he is a major figure, you should have no trouble finding sources that satisfy WP:Prof or WP:N. As it stands, the article doesn't come close to meeting either of those standards as it's currently written.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 01:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I read all 8 articles cited on the Spanish WP page. I saw nothing that satisfied WP:Prof in any of them. Could you be more specific as to what you're relying on? --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He clearly meets WP:N and he also meets criteria #7 of WP:Prof. The source is a major newspaper in Spain and the articles are about his death and the legacy of his work.--Jmundo (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think we'll end up just disagreeing on this, e.g., I have no idea what impact he's had outside his field. Best. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 02:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this moment are you the subject of a national newspaper article? --Jmundo (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As some of those article are obituaries, one hopes not. Regardless, these unquestionably minor articles do not satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:N or WP:Prof.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obituaries (as opposed to paid-for death notices) are amongst the best sort of press articles for establishing notability. Their existence means that the editorial judgement has been made that a subjects are important enough for their lives to be noted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was once pictured on the front page of the business section of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, but that was just a lucky break. Jlg4104 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another national newspaper article highlights one of his investigations. --Jmundo (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how that constitutes "impact outside academia." -Seidenstud (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm wrong but discovering "one of the few musical instruments held in Spain in the period of the Enlightenment" is notable for me. We don't need to argue about if he meets or doesn't meet WP:Prof, because the references from the national media establish his notability per wp:notable. If he was an American professor probably we would not have this discussion.--Jmundo (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does anything say he was chairman of the dept? In the obit in La Verdad, it simply says he was "profesor del departamento de Historia del Arte de la Universidad de Murcia," namely that he was a professor in the art history department.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 06:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is hard to figure this one out, as Manuel Pérez Sánchez, the honorific of his supposed named chair, is also on the faculty of the Art History dept. at Murcia.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 15:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed my vote to neutral given the doubt about the named chair. Whether or not he was department chair, that fact alone does not establish notability in my eyes. I abstain until further evidence crops up. --Crusio (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This translated article from the Spanish Wikipedia was created at 23:26 and was nominated for deletion at 23:35 the same day, WP:DEADLINE. --Jmundo (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yes, I'm a new page patroller on occasion. I read the Spanish WP page before cleaning up the English page.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 16:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can you specifically explain, with citations, how the subject satisfies WP:N? This is a far more extreme claim than saying he satisfies WP:Prof. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, he doesn't meet WP:N. Even though the sources are reliable and independent, in my opinion, they do not offer significant coverage of the subject. As I noted above, I think he does meet WP:CREATIVE for authors.  LinguistAtLarge  19:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is not a extreme claim saying he meets WP:Prof. His academic research, Google Scholar, is cited in secondary sources and has clearly had a significant impact in the community 1, 2.--Jmundo (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that GScholar search mostly renders works by others and the few works from EM Garcia that have been cited score below 10. That's really negligible. --Crusio (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meets criteria #7: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.--Jmundo (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
La Verdad.es is not your local newspaper, it covers the cities of Murcia, Albacete , Alicante. Population total: 920,000. For an individual you consider non-notable, his actions (like the localization one of the few instruments to survive from that time in Spain) got a good deal of coverage from the local newspaper. More evidence of notability: 1, 2.--Jmundo (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
La Verdad.es is a newspaper from Región of Murcia (1.425.000), Alicante (province) (1.800.000), and Albacete (province) (390.000), not just from that cities. Population total: 3.615.000. Definitely, La Verdad.es is not your local newspaper. --Klaiver (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As anyone who has done more than simply switched gates at an airport in Spain knows, the main papers are national, viz ABC, El Mundo, El Pais. Simply throwing aggregate population numbers is absurd; La Verdad is certainly a respectable paper, but this kind of wanton exaggeration simply weakens your point. Find significant coverage in El Pais and then get back to us. Eusebeus (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that the only source from Spain we can use in Wikipedia is "El Pais". It's like saying that the only reliable source from United States is the New York Times. I agree La Verdad is certainly a respectable paper that meets the criteria for independent secondary source.--Jmundo (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has claimed that La Verdad is not a respectable independent secundary source. It certainly can be used to source information included in an article. However, as it is not a national newspaper, articles in it only contribute in a minor way to establishing notability, IMHO. In addition, from the paper's website it appears that there are 3 separate editions for the 3 regions that it serves, further weakening its impact. --Crusio (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIAS: "Availability of sources is not uniform....Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and no incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic."--Jmundo (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I don't think that WP:BIAS applies here. Nobody here has complained about the fact that all sources are in Spanish or that sources in English are missing. I am not a native English speaker myself and very much aware of biases in WP against other languages. But I see absolutely no evidence of that here. Please, WP:AGF. --Crusio (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, I should concentrate in looking for more sources. My new search so far: This one is from the periodical "Epoca" describing the subject as a national expert 1; another article says "Maximo has been working in an "important and instrumental rescue" for Latin America 2. More sources are available, and I will continue to look.--Jmundo (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has just been improved, but i´m still working on it. --Klaiver (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of executable file formats[edit]

Comparison of executable file formats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Could be replaced with a single sentence in the PE article Mblumber (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Zadig Onnasch[edit]

Joey Zadig Onnasch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A few ghits, both under his name and for "rtnworld", but no secondary coverage that I could see (though some hits were in Swedish.) This may be a hoax. Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ganking[edit]

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

Neologism unsupported by independent references: neither notable nor verifiable. It was put up for proposed deletion in mid-2007. It's now 2009, and the article is still unsourced. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's Somethin' Wrong Here[edit]

AfDs for this article:
There's Somethin' Wrong Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Didn't chart, no substantial coverage about the song proper. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Harding[edit]

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

Photographer that I don't think (yet) meets our internal notability standards. rootology (C)(T) 22:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke and Joe's Crapulent Adventure Or: MTF The Grand Blanc Motivational Task Force[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Luke and Joe's Crapulent Adventure Or: MTF The Grand Blanc Motivational Task Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a student-made short film. The article does not cite any sources at all, its main claim to notability is its popularity amongst the high school it was made in, and is full of apparent "trivia" about the film, none of which meets notability standards. This article should be deleted unless sources can be provided that show the subject's notability. TheLetterM (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My reading of WP:MADEUP is that it can be tangible products, too... "If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia." —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NAC.--Jmundo (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Hassel[edit]

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

Biographical subject that upon initial review doesn't (I don't think) meet our notability standards. All of his article's sourcing is essentially made up of his own work. rootology (C)(T) 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. rootology (C)(T) 16:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF criterion 1., but one can also regard him as an author, since many of his works are intended for a popular audience. He has published a total of I note that the use of h indexes for people working in the applied social sciences is not valid; the limit is set by the number of total works, and ignores that books are more important than journal articles. I have added the books and holdings to the article. I did not expect to actually have to meet skepticism that someone with multiple books with around a thousand library holdings each is notable. I should perhaps have anticipated it, for in various AfDs I have seen a considerable skepticism over the significance of those working tin the field of education, as compared to the sciences. There will also be reviews--the author of the article should have listed them; I am only to a limited extent personally capable of making up for the deficiencies of all the editors in this field--perhaps some of the skeptical people ought to help look for these. DGG (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing it up. That's notable enough for me. rootology (C)(T) 16:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Samuels[edit]

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

Possibly notable under our inclusion standards, but I can't find any indication of sourcing to demonstrate that. rootology (C)(T) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershire schools performance table[edit]

Worcestershire schools performance table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD following a previous Speedy deletion an hour or so previously. A similar article has already been discussed and deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worcestershire schools. However, this article is sufficiently different to not be a G4. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Just a note that User:81.159.148.189 placed the three !votes above (I have struck out two of them but left the comments) and in doing so removed the header to the page, the nomination and !vote by NVO. Consequently, I have done a little reworking to put everything back together again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AtP Tower[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of this building being planned, or even of the billionaires that are supposed to be funding it. Even if this wasn't a WP:HOAX, not building it until 2012 means this should fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Svane[edit]

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

Composer, does have ghits but I haven't found any secondary source coverage of note on him. This article has been created and SD'd three times, we should settle whether he meets notability standards, but it doesn't look like he meets WP:CREATIVE. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without bias as the article does not establish notability as per WP:GROUP. Kralizec! (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Film Producers Alliance[edit]

Chicago Film Producers Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I first A7 CSD deleted this a while back. The article's creator complained loudly, and got the article userfied by another admin. The article quickly was returned to user space, and IMHO still does not show notability. Instead of A7ing it again, I tried placing improvement tags on it. And despite extended discussion on my talk page, and now on the article's talk page, the tags have all been removed twice without their problems being addressed. So IMHO it is time for an AFD discussion on the thing. IMHO, none of the links provided by the author serve to establish the notability of the group. The article has other problems (it's all sourced to primary sources, and reads like a press release IMHO), but the core issue is notability, which I still do not see. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read the article and found the one sentence "Marshalling a small crew of around 20, most of them found through Columbia College and the Chicago Producer’s Alliance, Singleton pulled the film together in four weeks from scripting to completion." I scrolled to the bottom of the page, after the end of the article, where it says "BACKTALK for this article"... that point where readers may add comments... and saw where you commented "The Chicago Film Producers alliance contributed crew, actors, contracts, a vfx consultant, general guidance and the camera equipment. Fletcher Chicago is a member and connected with Vincent through the alliance. —Drew Turner, The Chicago Film Producers Alliance". I went to the Blackfilm.com Legacy Film Challenge page and watched the film by Columbia College Chicago student Vincent Singleton, The Porter, and saw at the end of the screen credits, "Special thanks to: Andrew Turner of The Producer's Alliance". I did not miss it. However, and in the best way possible... and please do not be offended and insulted... it is just not eneough. I think what you guys are trying to accomplish is terrific. I have myself worked gratis in many student films because I believe in and respect your mission. But what you are offering toward notability is just not enough. And I am sorry. You know that I went to the article and began cleanup and sourcing per Wiki guidelines... and if I didn't care, I would not have bothered... but it just too little about the organization itself and so the article is premature... and bit too soon for Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MichaelQ, I appreciate your attention to detail but your rational just doesn't hold up. Your entire position is based soley on the translation of Wikipedia's policy to require more press coverage for "notability" when others on this very sight are defining notability differently. For example, here is evidence that Wikipedia's reviewing process is subjective and a double standard. On the film talk page, one reviewer wrote about notability, "appears notable enough, inclusion of actors such as Louis Gossett Jr., Daryl Hannah, and Michael Madsen indicate this is hardly someone's basement hobby project." So, notability there has been determined "just because name actors are in the film" and not because there was an article from a third party on the film.--ATurnerIII (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have agained returned to a quote from User:Starblind from the AfD for Shannon's Rainbow... an opinion toward a well publicized film and not a semi-private club. The film has significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The semi-private club does not. The admin who closed that debate might well have disregarded Starblind's comment, as closing admins study the weight of opinion and argument in light of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If an argument is WP:WAX the closer will ignore it. Despite appearances sometimes, an AfD is not a vote where majority rules. AfD is a discussion of guideline and policy and how the affect the subject being discussed. Notability for Shannon's Rainbow was specifically determined because of the outside sources, because it met the criteria set by guideline, and not because of the names in it. And just so here... in this discussion about the article you wrote for your organization the Chicago Film Producers Alliance, we are trying to help with just that... dicussing notability per guideline and policy, as the names who are claimed members mean little without the press to show the connection. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, I reject your attempt to put words in the author's mouth. The statement is clear on it's face. The contributor is defining notability as having "named actors". Based on his reasoning, CFPA should be justified based on our group's film, Holiday Baggage, alone. As I have said, Wikipedia is hypocritcal and inconsistent. You can not explain this away. Futhermore, your attempt to slight our group because we have a private membership falls flat. We are still of interest to the public because we represent independent producers, of which is a public interest to millions of Americans. The "Producers Guild of America(PGA)" is the top Hollywood organization, has been approved for listing on Wikipedia, and they also do not disclose their membership to the general public. Based on your logic, we should kick them out. I'd like to see you explain your reasoning to Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, the President. CFPA is just as viable as PGA. The only difference is that we represent independent producers versus those in the Hollywood studio system. Just because the membership is private does not void the fact that we create a product that is of interest to the public. Finally, I DON'T SEE A REFERENCE TO A THIRD PARTY ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOUT THE PGA IN THE PGA POSTING. The requirement of reviewers on this talk page that CPFA provide a 3rd party article to prove notability, when other postings on Wikipedia are being acceptedw without it, is becoming less credible by the minute.--ATurnerIII (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G's position is disingenious. He wrote that I stated that CFPA is, "is private and undocumented." That is not true. I said it was "semi private" and "is documented". The only thing private about it is that we don't make our ENTIRE membership known at any given time. That's to protect producers who do not wish to be swamped by actors and such. Other than that, much of what our members do is in the press. It's just that CFPA has not focused on taking credit for it because members credit each other in their films. I said CFPA is documented in the articles and the credits of some of the films that I supplied. I never said it wasn't documented at all. Again, we have people adding their two cents to this discussion that don't have their facts straight.--ATurnerIII (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The membership may be documented, but it is so only on the "members only" website. In the article, you assert certain notables are members... but your assertion cannot reasonable be confirmed. The minor mentions of CFPA in the few sources provided only confirm its existance and not its notability. We respect that you wish to "protect producers who do not wish to be swamped by actors and such", but in doing so you have tied our hands. That the members are covered in the press does not confer a notability to the organization, as their notability exists seperate and apart from the organization. Their notability does not depend on the organization, and you are trying to make a case that the organization's notability depends on them. That street does not run both ways. Though I myself do not always agree with User:Uncle G, his comment is a quite accurate evaluation of the situation. We do want to help, but your wish to not actively get press for the organization (outside the Wiki article) has tied our hands. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comments above about the "Producer's Guild of America" posting, I did not see a third party article about them referenced in that posting about the organization. So, it' safe to say that they were approved on the basis of the famous names that we included in the article. Thus, similar to the example I gave about the reviewer determining notability based on "named actors", it appears PGA was accepted to Wikipedia the same way. Accordingly, I do not find credibility in the position that CFPA has to provide information that is not expected of similar organizations.--ATurnerIII (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Richards[edit]

James A. Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-created vanity page. Most of the info in this article is unsourced and kinda spammy. A local article about him isn't notability. Same with the vanity-press book. I did a search for the usabooknews.com award - it seems that most of the books that mention this award or site are self-published authors, so there goes that claim to notability. Graymornings(talk) 21:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of George W. Bush[edit]

Criticism of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a WP:POVFORK of George W. Bush in which information is cherry picked and placed in this article with a bias. As it is criticism it is never going to be possible to achieve WP:NPOV. Criticism should be covered in the main article, presented in an NPOV way, not in a POVFORK such as this.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, please stop misrepresenting wikipedia guidelines, as I wrote in the other AfD, WP:POVFORK states: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."
Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit. travb (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not misrepresenting anything. Common sense would tell one that negative criticisms (which is all that these articles are in the first place) are best dealt with in the main article and/or other subsidiary articles. But of course, if we want to keep this project amateurish, then sure, let's create negative criticisms of everything. We can start absolute crap such as Criticism of Australia, Criticism of United Airlines, Criticism of Star Wars, Criticism of the PlayStation 3, Criticism of the Washington Post, Criticism of Queen Elizabeth and Criticism of cats (the dog lovers would like to work on that one I am sure). You may be an inclusionist, but at some point common sense should prevail, and I ask mind you not to misrepresent my position again...I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. --Russavia Dialogue 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What could an article full of negative views and criticisms be renamed to? I've proposed that the material be merged into the Presidency of George W. Bush article and/or relevant sub-articles all while adhering to WP:WEIGHT. I've worked on the main Bush article, and it deals prety well with criticisms of the president; nothing from this criticism article should be moved into the main article, rather we should create a better, fairer picture of President Bush by placing the positives right next to the negatives and not lump the bad into a POV fork, which this is. An Obama article regarding crticisms has been deleted twice as a POV fork and rightly so. The same applies here. Happyme22 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I don't know. I'm not sure if "criticism" is a good way of putting it, but I'm not sure what ELSE it could be. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read my response to the comment right above yours regarding WEIGHT and the main Bush article. Happyme22 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to comment on this: to say that he is one of the most criticized presidents is not a fact. You have to consider that criticism of a sitting president is going to be intense. The huge surge in the size of the internet as a whole, and a general increase of media and opinion outlets means that much more criticism of anyone is available to each member of the public. The fact that you've seen more criticisms of Bush does not mean that he has genuinely been more criticised than any other president, the huge increase of information sharing since he took office just means more of it has reached you. For example, I'm sure that Lincoln was just as controversial, but the average citizen would see only criticism in the form of an editorial in the local newspaper and word of mouth. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, whether the subject is historical or contemporary, there is no reason that all articles should not follow the Stalin article example, because that is how one would expect it to read in a professional publication, such as an encyclopaedia. All it takes is for us all to wake up to the fact of what it is that we are trying to build here; we don't see other publications doing things such as this, and it is these types of things which makes WP look like a wannabe and amateurish. --Russavia Dialogue 06:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that 3 of the 15 Criticism articles (all 15 still on wikipedia) which were nominated for deletion were nominated by Sceptre were closed the same day Speedy Keep, WP:SNOW and WP:POINT, another was closed "Snowball Keep, Everyone voted to keep" (Scientology controversies) travb (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could go on, google list 152 wikipedia pages,[17] but I think the point has been adequately made.
Of the 15 Criticism articles which have been put up for deletion, only one was deleted, and it was recreated two years later (linux). The overwhelming majority of AfDs were closed keep (12), and 1/3 (5) where closed speedy keep.
Not only does policy support such criticism articles, but the overwhelming consensus (15 out of 15 articles up for deletion in the past are still on wikipedia) is to keep such articles.
travb (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If editors are going to cite universally accepted policy and guidelines which they expect other editors to follow WP:POVFORK, then it is reasonable to show that articles such as this one are also universally accepted.
You state that each case is different, yet in the next sentence you use the Obama deletion as an example to bolster your viewpoint. You can't have it both ways.
The Obama speedy deletions are covered more on the this article's talk page.
travb (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I agree with WP:POINT, you will see that nominator is User:Muscovite99, who voted (may as well not allude that these AfD's are anything but a vote, because common sense is thrown out the window all too often) keep based upon the existence of the very same article that he has now nominated whilst that AfD was running its course. But seeing as there are plenty of merge and delete votes, there is no reason to not let this run its course also, and hopefully some common sense will prevail. --Russavia Dialogue 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I'll point out -- again -- that the idea that "criticism is inherently POV" is wrong, both by common sense and by Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, it's obvious to anybody who has been paying attention to world affair that criticism of Bush is a very large topic with considerable notability, with no lack of WP:RS in sight. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to deny that my nomination had been encouraged by Russavia's nomination that he has referred to. But there is a great actual difference between the two articles. Putin's criticism ought, in rights, be named "Allegations about criminal activity of Putin's regime" as most of the "criticism" is in fact just that; whereas Bush's is essentially partisan (party political) bluster and posturing, which is the integral part of any proper democracy's political life. Apart from that, a healthy discussion was generated and broadened, i think.Muscovite99 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Vladimir Putin eats babies for breakfast? We've got a reliable source that says he doesn't eat babies for breakfast, which given that denial there must be accusations out there that he does eat babies for breakfast? As evidenced by Putinism, you only are interested in presenting the most grotesque image possible, at least you have the decency on that article to admit that you don't even allude to maintaining any degree of POV. But funny is that your argument just now in regards to Bush is exactly the same as with Putin - the Putin criticism article is also partisan; i.e. those who are opposed to Putin...where is the 85% Russian POV in that article? By the way, Sergey Viktorovich sends his regards. --Russavia Dialogue 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of criminal activity of Putin's regime is the most minor of transgressions, that's merely about money. It's the rewriting of history taught throughout Russia, strong-arm tactics with the former republics and near abroad seeking to reimpose Russian hegemony, et al. that are an issue. "Criticism" of Putin, "criticism" of Bush are both totally valid as worthy encyclopedic topics.
   Using syllogisms such as Putin "eats babies for breakfast" to advance arguments with charges of grotesqueness and indecency is nothing but a collection of red herrings.
   If you wish to address what is "grotesque" then perhaps you'd like to suggest to Putin he adopt a more critical view of the Soviet past. PetersV       TALK 02:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bait-Ul-Ilm School[edit]

Bait-Ul-Ilm School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school article that reads like an advertisment and is a mish-mash of copyrighted material from the actual site. Conflict of interest since the article was created by User:Baitulilmschool. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 21:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning Rotations[edit]

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

No sources. It's a hoax Am86 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirkan Aydın[edit]

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. He had major roles in three notable productions. Schuym1 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Perrie[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I see no reason for this to stay open any longer because the merge has already taken place. To further discuss this, use the talk page. (NAC) Tavix (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heaviest land animals[edit]

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

About a year and a half ago, this list was put up for deletion with a consensus to merge to Largest organisms. This still hasn't happened yet, and I don't see any reason why this would happen anytime soon. I'm going to relist this to see if we can get another consensus because merging the list isn't going to happen. Tavix (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm not entirely sure if precedent has been to include articles on losing candidates, even from major parties, but since the subject has been covered in several sources covering the election, I see no way to delete an article if there is no consensus to do so, and in this case, the consensus seems to be for inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Conley[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy96 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it might not be a bad idea to merge the article with the 2008 South Carolina Senate race. Seems like better practice than every candidate having a page persisting after elections would be to move that material into the election artice. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect based on Flatterworld's merging of information. Most losing candidates are not notable outside of the election, which is given its own article. Bob Conley's name will, if redirected, link to the article that provides the information about him. All persons who have ever served in their nation's legislature, whether it's the U.S. Congress or the Andorra board of supervisors, are considered inherently notable under Wikipedia rules; and elections for national office (which include mention of all candidates) are inherently notable. However, inherent notability should not be extended to persons merely because they ran for office. Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Doesn't coverage from independant sources assert notability? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good Point: As I noted above, WP:BIO says "[j]ust being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Therefore, we can assume that an individual who is an "unelected candidate for political office" for whom significant coverage does exist does meet the notability requirements. Perhaps in this case we should err on the side of keeping the article, rather than a delete or a merge, and take this issue up for consensus at a higher level, as suggested by Flatterworld. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a lot of colons... It would be nice to have some sort of official policy on this, rather than having to try and interpret the current one. I'm going to make a proposal on the WP:BIO talk page. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even more colons, we making big sausages? I'll check it out when you do, because I tend to agree that this needs to be "officially" sorted out. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion seems to be between "coverage from independent sources" and "coverage from independent sources other than about the event". iow, one can have hundreds of articles about Bob Conley, but if they're all in connection with this campaign he's not Wikipedia-notable outside that one event. Flatterworld (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as failing WP:N (and any specifically applicable subsections). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilldale Lutheran Church[edit]

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

This article is about a church that does not establish notability. The article was previously nominated in August 2006 and closed with no consensus. Many of the keep arguments were that there appeared to be potential for notability. However, in over 2 years. I realize there is no deadline. However, my own search to find sources turns up only event listings that one would expect of any church. There no articles about the church. In particular, one area that the previous AFD referred to for potential notability was being a bilingual Finnish-English church, but that fact hasn't really generated coverage. Whpq (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability appears unprovable, so fails WP:Notability. Length of existance and bilingual nature do not establish notability, many churches are biligual or have existed without mention for long periods of time. The key here is the lack of information establishing notability. Unless presented with such information from a reliable third-party source, I must concur with the nominator. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: found one Gnews result for an event at the church. http://lakesuperiornews.info/LifeStyles/Arts/Music/MusicalMavens/tabid/867/Default.aspx Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Change, Weak Keep: I wasn't thorough enough in my initial searching. There are a number of articles and mentions of the facility being used as a music venue, and for other purposes which push it right to the edge or slightly over the notability requirement. The mentions in these references are questionable as to proving notability, but the volume of them pushes me to where I'd be comfortable keeping the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you point out some of these references? It would be useful for other editors taking part in the discussion. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I just googled the search suggestion of Aymatth2. (See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Hilldale+Lutheran+Church%22+music&start=30&sa=N). One thing I read that may be useful for more sources, and is a questionable actual source itself (probably not third-party), is a long report that seems to have a great deal to do with the Bilingual arguments brought up in the previous Afd. See: https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/3028/faithful.pdf?sequence=2 Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis - I still don't see how those sources establish it as a notable music venue. The first result returned is a university paper, and appears not to be independent as the preface states "First I would like to thank the faithful and committed members of the congregation who called me to be their pastor." The second result is a Thunderbay tourism guide and merely mentions it as a venue where the local symphony orchestra sometimes plays. Acoording to that "...the TBSO present inspiring Masterworks and entertaining Pops concerts in the Community Auditorium; intriguing Classical Plus concerts at the lovely Hilldale Lutheran Church; Cabaret evenings in the relaxed setting of the Italian Cultural Centre; and Family concerts at the Thunder Bay Art Gallery." As such it doesn't appear that the location is anything special, and no mention is made of any acoustic quality that would separate it from the other venues such as the community auditorium and the Italian cultural centre. The third and fourth results are event listings that say nothing beyond the church being the place where the event is taking place. The fifth links to a wiki user's subpage. The sixth has the church being part of music event listings. Note that it is not the only church mentioned in the event listings as many music events are held in churches. The seventh and eighth are obituary listings. And the last is a wiki mirror. Aside from the first result, none of the search results show anything more than a mere mention of the church, and certainly nothing to distinguish the church as something special from the point of view of being a music venue. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am quite uncertain about this one. There are a great many places of worship in the world, but most of them have no special historical or architectural interest, and no particular controversy. They are ordinary buildings used for the purpose for which they were built, and not at all notable. A good test for any article is whether the content is or could be entirely backed-up by independent sources. With this article as it is now, none of the content qualifies...
But there are quite a lot of independent sources that describe the qualities of the place as a music venue. It could be rewritten from this viewpoint, based on solid refs. But would this make it truly notable? Not sure - and not volunteering for the rewrite. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can you provide some links to specific articles that describe the church as a music venue? The search result list Jo7hs2 provided doesn't establish this. See above analysis. -- Whpq (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Here is one page that talks about the qualities of the facility... http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:J8R6qrLpHKIJ:www.tbso.ca/_docs/TBSO_Brochure_2008.pdf+%22Hilldale+Lutheran%22+%22thunder+bay%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=222&gl=us quote: "Ou rClassical Plus series once again intrigues with familiar favourites and new discoveries in the intimate atmosphere and wonderful acoustic of Hilldale Lutheran Church."Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the source is sales brochure from the TBSO, so it's a little dubious as a source, and is only quasi-independent. It's a very weak source to hang any sort of notability on. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Good question. When I made my "weak keep" vote I had just noticed 7 pages of search results for the church name+music. When I work through them, they describe past or future events, but not the church itself, apart from the occasional "beautiful.". I have changed to "delete". Aymatth2 (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - note that the university paper is not an independent source. See above search result analysis. -- Whpq (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - it is a very serious piece of research using a well defined methodology - I think we might stretch a point to allow it as a source - but even allowing it, I still agree with your move to delete this article. Off topic- perhaps we might hope for an article on Transition from an Immigrant Congregation, if anything else has been written on it? Springnuts (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I'd say it is useful as a supporting reference if other independent reliable sources could be found. But at this point, it appears to be the only source of substance, and it really can't stand alone. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Springnuts (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/Springnuts: That article is a serious research paper, or at least attempted to be one, and were there another source that met the notability guidelines, I would be more than comfortable considering it a valid source. However, no such source has been found. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Change again Delete: Per above, changing to Delete. Shear volume of sources outweighed by shear uselessness of them. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would disagree that the characterisation that there is any weight to of material that attests to the church's notability as a concert venue. Churches commonly host music events, and there are no articles that I've found, or that have been found by any others participating in this discussion beyond a directory listing. If directory listings for music were to be the metric by which we could measure a church's notability, I'm confident that we can manage to include almost every single church in the world. I can agree there is some wiggle room with the university paper (and have said so above). But the encyclopedia mention is literally that. A mention. It isn't even the sole subject of the sentence in which it is mentioned. Yes paper encyclopedia are contrained by space, but I would still want to see more than that one mention in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open to a Merge: I would be open to a merge. While Thunder Bay, Ontario currently does not have a section on churches, adding one to the culture section, or some other section, would work well for this particular article.Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge; I have considered this before but haven't gotten to it because my contribution level has declined lately. I grew up in the area of this church and it wasn't even very notable there, the article isn't very necessary. Thunder Bay has many other notable religious landmarks this would be a good addition to a subsection about them in the city's article instead. Also, there are many churches in the city that have concerts, including a 100+ year old church that plays host to the local symphony orchestra, and it doesn't have an article, so... vıdıoman 07:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Thunder Bay#Places of Worship. A decidedly arbitrary list; I hope other editors will clean it up and add detail. There are well over 100 places of worship in Thunder Bay, mostly not at all notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamus: 2012[edit]

Nostradamus: 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unaired programme, Wikipedia is not the TV Times and there is no indication of intrinsic external notability outside the TV schedules Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Multiple mentions in third party sources, most of which reliable. Much as I'd love to see cruft like this show deleted, and stay off the History channel, I have to vote keep because the show meets WP:Notability. Sources follow:

I think the Cinemablend and NPR articles together, discounting the others if they are too close to blog-like content, satisfy WP:Notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify (double-negative), you are saying that you think those two references are trivial? Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G7 by Thingg. Lenticel (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urth trading card game[edit]

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

Non-notable and non-professionally-published trading card game, with no sources listed let alone ones that would pass WP:RS. I'd speedy-delete it but unfortunately no speedy criterion seems to fit. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for helping me and giving me a part of your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateia2 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC) ok dudes you can burn this page delete the article i dont care —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateia2 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC) --Mateia2 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)DELETE THE ARTICLE CAUSE I DONT CARE[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Chater[edit]

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

Autobiography written by editor with possible conflict of interest. Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability as the notability of this person or his works are not established by the claims in the article or the references provided. =Axlq 17:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eprocks[edit]

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

I haven't found any significant coverage of this institution in google news, books, or web search. I can't find any independant reliable sources even mentioning EPRocks in the passing. Thereby it fails notability guidelines. It will also have a hard time supplying verifiable encyclopedic content, failing WP:V Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Married to Music[edit]

Married to Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of what I can turn up is mostly wikpedia knockoffs, so with only one reliable article, squeaks below WP:Notability and should be deleted. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Conjoined twins. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conjoinment[edit]

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

Contested PROD, "Non-notable neologism; article is orphaned; previously taged with non-notability." Additionally the articles has no sources and an attempt to find any came up with nothing. BJTalk 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Lipson[edit]

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

This article appears to be a resumé of a postdoctoral student or professor who has published and received honors like many other professors. I see nothing particularly distinguishing about this one. We don't need an article on every person who has published in a journal, received a Fulbright fellowship or NSF student award. The only significant claim of notability ("...was considered an important step...") is unsourced. Article was prodded, removed by editor who suggested further discussion in AfD. =Axlq 17:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the "important step" part, her work seems to have gotten a reasonable amount of news coverage, although admittedly the scope of the coverage (which barely focuses on her, and is rather about a particular discovery) might mean that the technique is a better subject for an article than the researcher. --Delirium (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this is now a keep per Nsk92 and Crusio below. Meets WP:PROF.  LinguistAtLarge  21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babilon[edit]

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

In the unclear notability category since September-07. Non-notable group/band. The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC) The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009[edit]

United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Legislature failed to change the law to allow this election. Chances of this election happening are now very slim. If, somehow, the law does get changed and the whole Blago/Burris mess gets changed to a special election after all, THEN this article can be recreated. But right now it's gone from being slightly speculative to a violation of WP:Crystal.—Markles 14:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Independent coverage appears to be lacking. Although WP:N is a guideline which can be ignored, no compelling reason has been presented why it should be ignored in this instance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropedia Foundation[edit]

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

Notability is asserted by inheritance from the board of directors, but not established. 31 unique Google hits, including Wikipedia article and categories. The creator is a single-purpose account, behaviour indicates a conflict of interest. Article is entirely self-sourced and comprised mainly of laundry lists. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium Indulgence[edit]

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

Self published, non-notable book Blowdart | talk 13:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aryans In India are the survivors of Trojan War[edit]

Aryans In India are the survivors of Trojan War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

disputable claims(no scientific standards), no reference to any academic work, reads like a fantasy story Wandalstouring (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional places in G.I. Joe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional places in G.I. Joe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pointless list consisting of plot summary and unsourced analysis. Notability has been in question since October 2007, but to date no reliable independent sources have been found. B. Wolterding (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above--Wadeperson (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is sourced, I added in the sources myself. Was there some editing I missed? And plot summary seems to be said as a bad thing, which confuses me. A list of names by themselves -would- be pointless. Lots42 (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further examination reveals a bunch of 'Country X is meant to stand in for Real Country Y'. I can see how this contributed to this very page. I deleted the speculation. But the rest of the sources I added in are still there. Lots42 (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reliable independent sources in the article. Apart from the speculation you mentioned, the article is plot summary (sourced to the original work of fiction), which should be avoided in this form per WP:NOT#PLOT. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't think we need to wait for the full AfD to finish for this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George kostaki[edit]

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

Article created October 2007 and no development since then. Almost certainly created in error - note mispelling of surname and lower case - given that there is a major article on the same subject: George Costakis, predating this page. Indeed, the first line of this article appears to be an attempt at a redirect to the real page, though given the misspelling it is probably unnecessary to redirect anyway. Emeraude (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 delete per previous AFD (hadn't realised when I nommed the article) Nancy talk 12:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Corey[edit]

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

.American actress and university lecturer. I just declined an A7 speedy on this one as there are mentions of Broadway roles etc however I am not convinced there is enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Roles appear to be minor although she has once understudied a lead. Nancy talk 11:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Progressivism[edit]

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

Unclear if this neologism is notable enough to warrant an article of its own. A simple redirect to Culture Warrior would probably be ok. Soman (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If my critics watched The O'Reilly Factor and the Fox News Channel as well as read Culture Warrior, they would understand that, among other things, Bill O'Reilly did refer to Soros, Lewis, and others as secular progressive, far left, etc. I also have a suspicion that some of my critics are themselves far left and secular progressive.

Nickidewbear (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also could be possible that you are confirming everything that other editors above (aka your "my critics") have just stated? Shot info (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TerrainView-Globe[edit]

TerrainView-Globe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails wikipedia's notability standards, I do not see why this specific program is notable besides all other programs out there that do the same thing. Wikipedia is not free ad space. The only sources so far are not even independent from the subject.

What a program is capable of does not make it notable. — Dædαlus Contribs 11:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

74.63.221.234 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 and R3. --Oxymoron83 09:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_United_States_Senators_in_the_11st_Congress_by_seniority[edit]

List_of_United_States_Senators_in_the_11st_Congress_by_seniority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Misspelling in Page Title Dunstvangeet (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crixás UFO Incident[edit]

Crixás UFO Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Do not think this was a notable event. Does not seem to have any third-party reliable sources which discuss it that are not UFO-fansites. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Bennett (writer)[edit]

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

Do not believe that this is a notable author. Seems to fail WP:BIO. Notability derived from an appearance at a convention and publication of three niche-paperbacks and a few articles in Fortean times? Doesn't seem to pass the muster with me. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Taken. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Freedom of Information[edit]

Coalition for Freedom of Information (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe that this orginization is essentially WP:ONEEVENT. It was set-up as a promotional stunt for a television program. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article considerably including a number of additional references. The claims that the organization is a mere PR ploy are just that, allegations, and it would be inappropriate in the context of this AFD to deal with this as established fact. I might add that I had no problem finding relable sources using Google search and I did not exhaust the available hits, so anyone who wants to expand the article even further should be able to do that. __meco (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Taken - Expanded it may be, worthy of it's own article it still isn't. Richard Hock (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin C. Girvin[edit]

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

Complete and utter obscurity. The article itself admits that he is the "most obscure of the 1950s contactees". Sources generally mention him off hand in single sentences! (E.g. the Look magazine account.) Definitely fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Steven M. Greer in order to preserve merged information edit history per requirements of GFDL. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSETI[edit]

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

This particular organization excites the passions of various UFO-enthusiasts, the ZetaTalk crowd, and those who believe in Ashtar Galactic Command, but unlike other organizations who seem to have renown enough to have many third-party independent sources which discuss them, this particular group has received no notice from anyone outside of the parochial community. It is impossible to write an article on them for a mainstream neutral encyclopedia. What's more, the organization appears to fail our organization notability guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess of Du'val[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Princess of Du'val (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book, if even extant. Only Google hit I found is for a website from which the book can be ordered. Also note that I have left intact the article creator's line: "UNDER CONSTRUCTION", which he placed there two days ago. He has not returned to the article since, though a prod placed by another editor has been removed. Unschool 05:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G3, G7 and this discussion. --Oxymoron83 09:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotypical syndrome[edit]

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

It appears to be an article about a disease, but no references are cited, and a "joke alert" image appears in the middle, making the article look like a joke. —macyes: bot 03:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peafowl (software)[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanon Wakeshima[edit]

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

Unnotable singer. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Just debuted this year with two minor songs in an anime series. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Most of article is unsourced or from promo sites. CSD person removed by self-proclaimed fan whose user page notes that he is "in love" with her, but as he is not the article creator, did not restore. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - she is signed by a major label, which has set release dates for 2 of her albums (see this and this). I believe this is enough to satisfy the spirit of WP:Music. Óðinn (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...that is the same album. Same tracks and everything, which fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Yes, indeed. Changing to delete. Óðinn (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing !vote to keep on the good-faith assumption that the anon IP's claim that she charted can be sourced (through the Oricon website if nothing else). —Quasirandom (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your source for this is? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 and G11. --Oxymoron83 09:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Nursing Practice Network (NNPN)[edit]

National Nursing Practice Network (NNPN) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spam. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nick Pope[edit]

The result was unanimous snowball keep. Non admin closure. --Terrillja talk 16:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is written like a fan page. Only very recently got any outside third party sources at all, and those are not enough to establish notability per Wikipedia standards. I had prodded this, another supported the prod with, but prod was challenged with the claim that it was notable. Looking for broader input than just the page watchers. DreamGuy (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's been fixed now, and a few more references added. IMHO "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:N has more than met (probably was met before the AFD, TBH) and I'm now just looking for sources to cite for specific claims, as well as doing a little bit of tidy up. Artw (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JODIE WELLS[edit]

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

WP:NOT a place for school book reports. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drone Forest[edit]

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

Stub with insufficient context to identify the subject; no assertion of notability. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer prg[edit]

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

No references, no assertion of notability. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missosology[edit]

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

Thinly-veiled references to a website that studies beauty pageants. So-called references include the site itself, a blog, a comment on a Wikia site referring to a Harry Turtledove satirical piece that has nothing do with this subject, and a comment on a Wikia link that refers to the previous ref. It borders on WP:BOLLOCKS, but it's mainly a neologism with no usage outside this one web site. All ghits are either to the site itself or links to it. Not notable in the least. (Contested prod.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical fellow[edit]

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

The article's notability is in question since September 2007, and there's some dispute in that respect on the talk page. In my opinion, the topic does not meet WP:N. Namely, no independent sources have been provided to back up that "Technical fellow" is a term or concept in general use (apart from naming coincidences). If, on the other hand, this concept relates to one company only, I don't think it's worth an article - there's no point in hosting there staff list or organization chart on Wikipedia. B. Wolterding (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete as G10. This page was created to disparage a specific racial group. TerriersFan (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original settlement of Sri Lanka[edit]

Original settlement of Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced attacks of other groups Eeekster (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Overstreet[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic Economics Magazine[edit]

Chiropractic Economics Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable magazine with no references. Hipocrite (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2008 (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) 00:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ace duraflo[edit]

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

Non-notable permastub with no sources. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:44, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of political organizations whose name include "Marxist-Leninist"[edit]

List of political organizations whose name include "Marxist-Leninist" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate listcruft. It is a violation of WP:IINFO and WP:LC, items #2, 5, 7, 8, 10. Tavix (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eustacius de Yerburgh[edit]

Eustacius de Yerburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources for the existence of this person. Even if the Arlington Cemetery site is a reliable source, which is debatable, it just mentions this person in passing. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus here seems to be that the issue over sourcing has not been adequately adressed. After reading through the discussion, it appears that the prevalent opinion is that the citations mentioned by Davidwr are not sufficient to establish notability, since they are not about the subject, Delirium has a reasonable sumup of the situation. Hence, I am closing the discussion with a deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backslash paper[edit]

Backslash paper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Malick[edit]

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

NN movie director... google, google news find almost nothing that isn't a fansite of one sort or another. roux   06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he had directed english-language music videos of similar popularity, this wouldn't even be up for discussion. AfD hero (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone concerned i am Aamir Malick and i am an AD film maker from Pakistan i have directed over 75 Tv commercials and couple of Music Videos of Famous Pakistan Singers which includes "Jalttheband" and Fakhir both top singers in Pakistan and you can find me on Pakistan top advertising website brandsynario here is the Link "http://www.brandsynario.com/ShowCategory.aspx?CategoryID=4 " and you can see my work on you tube as well here is the Link "http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aamir+malick&search_type=&aq=f" i own a company called Cloudnine Films in karachi we have worked with Clients like Procter & Gamble , PEPSI , Colgate Palmolive Mobilink etc ...looking forward for a positive response —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.24.200 (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Userfy (to User:RI/Alfredo Zardini). Stifle (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Zardini[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. DimaG (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps we could userfy the article to give Rl the time to find the relevant reference? If the event indeed had the effect of large numbers of workers taking the day off, than his attack is notable (and I don't think there's a better title to put an article on the attack under). - Mgm|(talk) 16:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can live with that. Thanks. Rl (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the cited sources are largely trivial and insufficient to establish encyclopedic notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerraud Powers[edit]

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

To the extent that I understand WP:ATHLETE, people are not notable solely for playing university football and getting bitten by dogs.  Sandstein  22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added some references and notation of the Zeke Smith award. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His notability is established by substantial coverage from reliable sources and a notable award for being the defensive player of the year at Auburn University. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: WP:Athlete suggests that no amateur athlete is notable enough, unless they compete at for instance a World Championship (or a BCS title game, I imagine?). (That means no Rashad Johnson or Andre Smith, since the Tide is only in the Sugar Bowl?) Anyway, I would like someone to weigh in on this, since that's the rub. Despite one editor's hard and diligent work on the article, I don't think this athlete is notable enough--the Zeke Smith award didn't even make the paper here, and I live an hour and a half away. Now, getting bit by a dog, I remember it well! But then, I'm a Alabama fan... (so, I'm leaning toward delete...) Drmies (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ample media coverage of Powers in a variety of settings seems to meet the more general notability guideline. And I would think getting an award as the best defensive player on your Div 1 team (Kevin Greene got it...)is competing at a pretty high level of Football. But I agree it's not a slam dunk. I would like to point out the extraordinary conflict of interest regarding Drmies being a Bama fan. :) Should he be blocked from editing any Auburn related articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the most blatant accusation I've had to face since I got out of walking the dog yesterday (bad hamstring...war wound...). What's with the biting, Child? Got a jaw-fetish? Just to show you what a good sport I can be: here. (Hope the link works for you--the archives for the Montgomery Advertiser are not accessible to me, strangely.) Now, in the interest of full disclosure, my paycheck actually comes from Auburn. There. And I'll see you at arbitration, if my dog doesn't bite you in the hand first. Oh, grudgingly, I might stop leaning toward delete, if only because, as the Bear used to say, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. (OK, that doesn't really apply, but come on, it's not a bad find.) Drmies (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some more sourced content. He's been covered extensively since high school, including in USA Today, the New York Times, regional papers, recieved honors etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

82 Hudson[edit]

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

Non-notable bus line. DonaldDuck (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalitstan[edit]

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

Tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 but asserts notability and has a fairly busy edit history. That said, the article is almost entirely self-sourced and the claim of notability might legitimately said to be unproven from the content. The article has been tagged for cleanup for over two years and is still well below standard. Was a "keep and cleanup" a year ago, but has not been cleaned up. Much of the content appears to be the work of Hkelkar and his socks. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That makes a lot of things notable. Empire3131 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarette substitute[edit]

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

Unnecessary article with a non-notable topic. Basically only describes one particular cigarette substitute, the electronic cigarette, for which there is already a more extensive article. Lists patents for some other devices, however those listed actually don't fall under the definition of a "cigarette substitute" given by the article. Sources given are just links to patent descriptions. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:31, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn - doesn't appear to be a hoax.. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sher e bangla medical college[edit]

Sher e bangla medical college (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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