< January 20	January 22 >

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

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Academic Friends of Israel[edit]

Limited to zero notability, few secondary sources. Lots of charities exist. Why is this one special? Aurush kazemini^talk 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. "Special" isn't required (though this organization's fighting against academic bigotry is arguably special); the standard is notability, and this clearly surpasses it. Lots of coverage in international press. See Guardian, and several Jerusalem Post articles behind subscription wall. Article has some WP:SYN problems, but that's a reason for repair, rather than deletion. THF (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you can't just assume there's actual bigotry; that's in dispute and is Wikipedia:NPOV, it would be better to integrate the relevant parts of this article into Academic boycotts of Israel (which imo isn't balanced as is, and could use some of this information), but most of it can be deleted Aurush kazemini^talk 03:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merger would be inappropriate, because the organization has broader purposes than the academic boycotts issue (for example, it organizes scientific conferences and provides support for Israeli academics), but in any event you didn't put a mergeto tag or otherwise propose a merge, you opened an AFD. THF (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sure a lot of organizations do that; i don't see how that by itself confers notability --- the only potential notability they seem to have is in this anti-Israeli boycott issue. i didn't propose a merge because i don't see it as necessary to forward International Academic Friends of Israel to Academic boycotts of Israel; i don't really have an objection to that, but moving the little bit of useful information in International Academic Friends of Israel and pasting it in Academic boycotts of Israel seems suitable and isn't something i'd strictly consider a merger. the alternative you're proposing is a setup like "click here to see an alternative viewpoint" on Academic boycotts of Israel (International Academic Friends of Israel is barely mentioned in the one place it might be relevant, Academic boycotts of Israel, leading me to question its notability even more) Aurush kazemini^talk 05:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sponsoring major academic meetings is notable; yes, "a lot of organizations do that", and all of them is notable. This one is shown not to be of trivial importance through its founding by the editor of one of the very most important biomedical journals. though not free from political affiliation, [[1]] is an acceptable source, along with the others.DGG (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The intro needs a rewrite, but the group is notable. CJCurrie (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:45, 23 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. Tone 21:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katrine Dalsgård[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Weak delete. Some Google scholar results, but not especially notable ones; arguably flunks WP:PROF. Previous AFD in Aug 2007 had no consensus. Has had notability tag since Sep 2007 without anyone adding references to this orphan article. We've kept articles of people less notable, and deleted bios of more notable people. THF (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence is presented that she passes WP:PROF; I don't see any such evidence in the nominated version of the article. In the previous AfD, Dhartung claimed that there were "quite a few Google Scholar results" (and if that were true it could be used to argue a pass of WP:PROF #1), but I'm not seeing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF at all. JBsupreme (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Assistant professor who could attain notability in the future, but not even close at the moment. Most widely held book in libraries currently in less than 3 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete First, WorldCat, despite its name covers almost exclusively US and Canadian libraries. The work listed there ,The one all-black town worth the pain is not actually a book, but a 22 page article published originally in the series Odense American Studies International series., Working paper ; no. 44. which too is rarely held in the US. Publication in such a series often means that it has been published as an article elsewhere as well, and in fact, However, the paper was republished in African American Review, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Summer, 2001), pp. 233-248 (a very widely held journal), and consequently seems to have been frequently cited judging by Google Scholar along with some other works of hers':[2] (the reason David E missed it is that his search used the au:prefix, which limits the search to works of which she is the author, not where she is cited. Further, he used the search string K-Dalsgård, which limits the search literally to the form with the å, and most of the listings there use the spelling Alsgaard. (If one omits the hyphen, it searches all forms, though it also brings up other many other Dalsgårds--using quotes has the same limiting effect as an hyphen. GS works peculiarly, as compared to more professionally targeted databases) However, this is the only significant publication so far, and therefore this assistant professor is not yet notable. DGG (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with DGG about the paper in African American Review being the sole significant publication; A very loose search of Web of Science, Author=(dalsgard k* OR dalsgaard k*), confirms this. Moreover, it has been cited by only 5 other archival-journal-published articles. As the notability claim seems best matched to WP:PROF, it does not appear this article passes muster. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 23 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. kur ykh 00:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User State Migration Tool[edit]

(Help!) 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know what USMT does. Microsoft gives us a fair description, so we don't need this WP:HOWTO. Guy
Weak keep. I'd say it's clearly a notable piece of software. I'd like to see what can be done with the article by editors interested in writing about it in a more appropriate style; perhaps the article should be tagged for cleanup and we should revisit it after a few months. JulesH (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Cannot accept the argument that anything, that is allready described somewhere else on the Internet, does not belong in a wiki? For me the information included in the User State Migration Tool article is put here by me because I my self would have liked to know about USMT. It would have saved me a lot of trouble to have knowledge of before trying other bad solutions as fx. Windows_Easy_Transfer. Also I consider this page it self just as thorough and relevant, if not more, as fx. the above mentioned page (Windows_Easy_Transfer).
NOTE: I've had this page moved, "Quickdeleted", been acused of blatant advertising and more. All without any comment or explanation up til now. If this is the treatment I can expect to meet on Wikipedia I'll sincerely consider spending my time on more productive information channels. Samohtrelhe (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant software from major companies is notable. It will certainly have been reviewed,and there aremultiple published descriptions about how to use it. I added two generally reliable 3rd party non-Microsoft sources--ZDnet and Safdari books, but I saw dozens of others. . The question for inclusion in Wikipedia here is not whether or not it is available elsewhere on the internet--it is whether it should be in the encyclopedia. Excessively instructional content belongs elsewhere, such as Wikibooks. Perhaps the 4th section in this article is instructional, but that's a problem for editing. The rest is descriptive and belong here. As for the other article mentioned, it too is appropriate, but it too needs some non-Microsoft sources. DGG (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basic Google Books and Google News archive searches show notability. Between the arguments that we often get that articles without online sources should be deleted and this argument that articles on subjects covered elsewhere on the internet should be deleted we would be left with nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite completely as the editor who seconded the prod when the article was named USMT(diff). As far as I am concerned, this is still promotional FAQ instead of a valid Wikipedia article. If it's kept, it needs a complete, non-promotional rewrite to get it to Wikipedia standard. The sources mentioned above should be incorporated into the article to bolster the points regarding notability (for it to meet WP:N, there must be some reliable sourcing outside of Microsoft. This reads like a Microsoft promo or FAQ sheet instead of what it should be: an article in Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rewrite. There should be a place were there is another view on the microsoft tools. Its already rewritten and there for sure interest to rewrite and modify it. Carsrac (talk) 11:00, 24 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. Tone 21:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of hispanic neighborhoods[edit]

Delete admittedly a WP:SYNTH of other data on Wikipedia with some selectivity which may be attributable to a POV or to incompleteness or just an irremediable problem. And does having 50% Hispanic (does this differ from Latino?) population differ substantially from having 49%? Why not have another list with <fill in the blank>% The selection of 50% is just one possible notability marker. In essence, this is just not a keeper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whatever happens to this article the title is patently ridiculous. Is this intended to include every neighbourhood in Spain and most of Latin America? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep New author, new to the rules. Actually not a bad idea for an article; it takes time to learn the rules. One of those rules is that it's not enough to say that one's references are other Wikipedia articles. However, to the extent that those articles have verifiable sources, you can cite those sources as well as citing your own. The title, of course, should reflect that this is about Hispanic neighborhoods in the United States. It goes without saying, however, that there are sections of towns that are "White", "Black", "Hispanic", "Asian". If a table were to be made (not as difficult as it might seem), it can list percentages. Mandsford (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ill defined term. "Neighborhoods", as presented by this list, is confusing and self-contradictory. I'll use Southern California as a prime example as I'm very familiar with it. It lists Santa Ana and then has the heading "Los Angeles, California and Metro Area" then proceeds to list some neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles, some that are separate cities and some that are districts within those separate cities. Besides Santa Ana arguably being part of "Los Angeles, California and Metro Area", in this day and age, almost every city and neighborhood in "Los Angeles, California and Metro Area" is heavily Hispanic. It's giving the incorrect impression that there are Latino "enclaves" dotted throughout the city and region. Only a minority of cities and neighborhoods in the "Los Angeles and Metro Area" don't have a high Latino populations. --Oakshade (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List is too broad to be encyclopedic, see WP:SALAT. Themfromspace (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially original research (synthesis by a Wikipedia contributor using arbitrary definitions and data from primary sources). The issue of scope could be resolved by retitling it as "List of hispanic neighborhoods in the United States" and the issue of completeness could be resolved by using Census data to identify all concentrations of >50% Hispanic population, but the issue of its being original research would remain, so it should be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fangs (album)[edit]

An album which is not even released yet, and when it is will probably be indistinguishable from a hundred thousand others. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been announced and is an official CD, so I don't really see why it shouldn't stay where it is. What do you mean by "indistinguishable"? That's sort of a personal opinion, don't you think? Chris —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems fine as a future scheduled release. --neon white talk 23:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--future release, but with documentation, so no violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article has a little more than just a release date and track listing, but not much. The worst thing about the article is that the references are all WP:SELFPUBlished. Since the band is notable, I'm assuming this can be cleaned up with better sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we allowed to use Myspace profiles as references? I'm never sure about that, but a lot of relevant information in the Wiki entry comes from there. Also, I'm not sure what other sources I can use, since the BEC site is the only other source, and is the most reputable at the moment. Chrisdazzo (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: no myspace can't be used for verification as it is not independent from the subject. JamesBurns (talk) 03:49, 24 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, G3 by Hmwith . Lenticel ^(talk) 02:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralphy Got Swagg[edit]

A very confused-reading article on something which appears to be asserted to be notable solely on the basis of the annual "worst record" spacefiller in one magazine. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like the bulk of it is just a copy-and-paste of souljaboytellem.com (which surely is notable - you've never heard "Crank That", Guy? ☺). Zagalejo^^^ 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Vandalism, nonsense and a hoax all in one. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I just learned this article was speedily deleted before. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 22 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. Keeper | 76 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous American sports figures who became politicians[edit]

POV & OR - there is nothing limiting "famous" and what elective office held by the person - it's subjectively chosen (e.g., where is Gerald Ford?) and when precisely did Byron White run for the Supreme Court? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Notable American sports figures who held elective office or American professional sports figures who held elective office. The concept is OK, but "famous" is a bit too POVish. And yes, I understand that this still means removing Byron White. Rklear (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename The word famous should go but it's otherwise fine. A sports figure is a person who is Wikipedia-notable for their sporting achievements or their sporting career. Politician is a little less clear, so changing that to elective office would perhaps be better, but if all that is changed, I no longer see how it can't be subjective. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion on whether this should be kept or deleted, but I would invite people commenting here to consider whether they would support the inclusion of a list of, say, Liberian, Russian or Vatican politicians who had a past life in sport. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support any such list involving elected politicians. Sports celebrity, like military reputation, has an effect on voter attitudes toward candidates. There is a reasonable association between sports success and political success, so a list of such associations has meaning. Rklear (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to something like List of sportspeople who became politicians. On further reflection I agree that this is a notable intersection, but, unless or until the list becomes too long for a single article, I think that this would be better as a world-wide list including people such as George Weah, Gary Kasparov and Sebastian Coe. I would add that it's not necessary to hold elective office to be considered notable as a politician - neither George Weah nor Gary Kasparov has done so but their political activities are notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Less indiscriminate than List of sportspeople who served or are serving in political office, but the days of introducing unsourced "everybody knows this already" lists are over as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure this will probably end in a no consensus, and maybe it will be improved, but lists of American athletes who served the American government have been published before; there's no excuse for not citing to something. To set it apart from the usual "Did you know that Steve Largent was also a......" list, expand beyond the limits of American athletes. Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there's evidence for the notability in both sports and politics the entry is justified. Personally, I consider the existence of a WP article on the person showing both aspects as sufficient justification and sourcing, in spite oft he general rule against using Wikipedia articles for sourcing, because the conditions are usually perfectly objective and sourced in the article. But if the consensus remains against this, they can all be sourced to suitable news sources; there is no difficulty in demonstrating, for example, both Bradley's basketball career and senatorship. We m,ay have problems with intersections relying upon less obvious things, like a person's religious beliefs. But political office? Olympic/professional sports? DGG (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant with the list Mandsford mentioned. Benefix (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't think "needs citations" is a good reason to delete it as long as citing is possible. I think it should be regarded as a sublist of List of sportspeople who served or are serving in political office, maybe merged there or at least renamed for consistency. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 19:40, 25 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. Although there is one delete vote, the keep votes have provided, IMHO, sufficient evidence to refute the delete voter's reasoning. Taking that refutation and the quality of the arguements of the people supporting the article's inclusion in Wikipedia, I see the consensus as being a strong keep, with any other outcome having "a snowballs chance in hell" (per WP:SNOW). (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Black Psychology[edit]

An article on a magazine which is written as a directory entry and lacks independent sources (the sources are the journal and its sponsor organisation). Guy (Help!) 22:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, absolutely, and please withdraw this nomination or close it speedily. On my campus, it's full-text accessible via Sage. It's published by the Association of Black Psychologists, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary. It's indexed by PubMed. It's indexed by EBSCO. Should I really go on? Try this search in Google Scholar--even if not all the 3,800 hits are notable or appropriate, chances are we're dealing with a notable journal. If the article isn't good, editing it is the way. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whilst there is evidence of this journal being cited in some papers, this does not make the journal notable, unless there is evidence that this is considered an important journal in it's field i think it should go. Where it is published and inclusion in directories are not evidence of notability. --neon white talk 23:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about inclusion in directories. Being included by EBSCO or something like that is not like getting your blog mentioned somewhere on some other blog. Where it is published--I assume you mean by whom it is published--is in fact important, at least in academia, which is where I work and where this journal operates. "This journal is being cited in some papers" hardly does justice to reality; 3,800 hits on Google News really should settle this already. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being included in Pubmed or EBSCO mean that people independent from the subject made an editorial judgement that their work was significant. It's not just a random made up journal, it's one by a notable organization of experts. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It's held by more than 500 libraries per Worldcat, cited by an opinion writer in WSJ here and there's much more. If this is seriously challenged I'll try to come back later and flesh this out further. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being held by libraries is not a criteria for notability. A single line mention in a WSJ op piece is simple not enough to satisfy basic notability. If there is anything better it needs to be provide here. Refer to Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals --neon white talk 23:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a dime store novel, it is a peer review journal and being held by university and research center libraries probably does establish notability. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journals there seems to refer to what you get in a newsagents not a Peer Reviewed Journal. Oh and that page is an essay. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Xymmax is obviously right. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Googling 'journal of black psychology' produces very many usable references, going far beyond the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals cited by Neon white. This peer review journal is important. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Independent sources have been added to External links, and 'written as a directory' is subjective (and inaccurate to my thinking); nomination lacks premise. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the impact factor is of the level I'd expected and 440 notable cites in 2007 indicated that it is considered notable in it's field. Needs better sources,not deleting. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep peer-reviewed journals in major indexes are notable. Being used as a source for other significant journals is exactly one of the conditions in the essay on notability of media referred to, and I think that this criterion it applies here as well. The article needs expansion, though: sort of material that is usually added to such pages is the names & affiliations of the successive editors in chief, a scan of the cover, and the names of the major indexes, along with the impact factor mentioned above. I also consider it suitable to list 2 or 3 of the most important papers published there. The nomination was essentially based on it being a stub,and we do not delete stubs. DGG (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's comments. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure which way to go with this, but I'd just like to say I thought notability wasn't inherited. Why should this be kept just because it is listed in database X? I'm trying to look for adequate sources for this to meet the notability guidelines, but that is hard to do as there are so many citations of the journal in my searches that make finding independant discussion about the journal difficult, if it exists. Themfromspace (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But with an academic journal, notability is not going to be established by other sources talking about the journal but by them citing the journal. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But on Wikipedia, as opposed to the academic world, citing the topic of an article and discussing it in detail are two completetly different things. Themfromspace (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the point - it's act of citation that provides the notability - are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area - yes evidenced by it's impact factor and other accepted measures of academic notability and importance. are frequently cited by other reliable sources - 244 cites in other noted peer reviewed journals in 2007. How is notable within the field not demonstrated? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just so. It's not a single quotation, or even two which establishes notability--the GNG is not meant to be used this way. We are I hope not going to include all journals which were cited twice only anywhere in the world. How many is enough? Enough for the journal to be included in the principal indexes. We accept their standards. DGG (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, totally. Drmies has slaughtered the argument for deletion.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's Snowing and notability has been clearly established Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep' as per Drmies. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 22 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. Redirect proposals by some are effectively opposed by others. I suggest revisiting fauxmosexual (redirected in 2006 for lack of sources) to see if more recent reported uses support an article on that term, into which this can be merged. bd2412 T 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Celesbian[edit]

Slang neologism with one mention in a single press article as a source. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It seems like a neologism to me, but there are a few additional sources on the talk page. Perhaps we should contact WP:LGBT? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Comment - 11 google news hits ([3]). Not sure if merits own article, but should at least remain in something like LGBT slang Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Depressingly weak keep~~ because it seems to be coming into common parlance for all the worst reasons (whatever they are). I won't be upset to see it go, though. Almost nominated it myself when I saw it first. Fiddle Faddle (talk)
- Delete after reflection. The more I look at this the more I say Wiktionary. This is a word, nothing more, and as a dicdef it does not belong here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's a neologism but we cover those, it's poorly written, which can be fixed and I already posted some refs on the article talkpage. -- Banjeboi 00:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LGBT slang. Ugh. Bastique ^demandez 00:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read the article you intend to redirect it to. It has no place there. This is heterosexual slang for a particularly offensive thing, a non lesbian pretender! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in Australia has been quite extensive, so I fear this article is still North America centric. See for example Celesbians are the new black. I don't think it should be merged into LGBT slang because one of the uses of it is for someone who is not really a lesbian but pretending to be lesbian to advance her career. Scarykitty (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found a 2003 reference in an offline source. "Between the Covers" Philadelphia Weekly. "For online language geeks there's the indefatigable Word Spy (www.wordspy.com), aka Paul McFedries, who tracks new coinages practically instantaneously. Take "celesbian," for example (this means you, Tatu)." Wordspy.com itself dates its first use back to 1998, but in a different usage, of "lesbian celebrity." I think the evolving meanings alone make this an encyclopedic article and not a wiktionary article. Word spy. Scarykitty (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently sourced neologism with WP:BLP concerns with regard to suggesting that at least one person is falsely claiming to be a lesbian. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I nuked the BLPvio as soon as I saw it. Should that still really be a factor in the delete? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there's still a reference violating BLP in there. But even if that one were taken out also, the article would still be about an insufficiently sourced neologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete--it is a neologism with barely a reference to stand on (even if ScaryKitty's is included), and I don't think a redirect to LGBT slang is in order: it's not LGBT slang, certainly not in the way it is used in that Sydney Morning Herald article (even if the author were "G," its source is a mainstream newspaper). Drmies (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with LGBT slang, because, um, it's slang and it relates to LGBT issues.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reading the article you want to merge it into shows that it is about slang used by gay people, not about slang in alleged common parlance about people who decide they are lesbian because it's good PR to be one today. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Fiddle Faddle--I take mild offense at Marshalll's "um." LBGT slang is slang used BY the LGBT community, Marshall. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No offence intended. What I want to do is merge the term with some appropriate article. If the LGBT slang article is reserved for words used BY LGBT people, then where are we allowed to put words used FOR LGBT people?--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No harm intended, no foul committed. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - In Wiktionary. The LGBT Slang article defines the phenomenon with examples, but does not list a dictionary of slang. Slang does not list slang either. The words per se go into a dictionary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant change to keep, since there's apparently no appropriate place on Wikipedia to merge it to.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We should not hold stuff because there is nowhere else for it, though. That is a recipe for degrading the encyclopaedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there;s no appropriate place in Wikipedia to merge it to, but there is a place for it in Wiktionary. DGG (talk) 17:37, 22 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 recreation of deleted content, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unhexseptium and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element extrapolation. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uqn[edit]

Claims to be important as a chemical emement, but doesn't give any sourcing, and says it's only a "hypothetical idea." Notable? TheAE talk/sign 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Element symbol which does not exist. WP:CRYSTAL. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element extrapolation and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unhexseptium for related discussion. -Atmoz (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've corrected the spelling of the hypothetical element and added a reference. Normally I'd say move to unquadnilium and expand, but unquadnilium was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element extrapolation. However, it seems we could be covering the broader subject of names for undiscovered elements somewhere, and this should probably redirect to that article, whatever it is.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 22 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. Icewedge (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Wyler:The Movie[edit]

Searching for this movie online, I could find no sources at all to verify this even exists. Also one of the actresses Alicia Payan also appears to be a non-notable person as there are no hits on her online as well. Searching IMDB brings up nothing for this movie, and nothing for Ms. Payan. Other notable actresses in the movie do not have this film listed in IMDB. Looks more and more like a hoax, and rather than put a CSD G3 tag on the article I want to bring it to AfD for further review. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 5 Google hits, all wikipedia and/or mirrors. This looks possibly a hoax. JamesBurns (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, as a careful search finds absolutely nothing about the "film"... not even in blogs (what a shock) and only slightly more about the non-notable Miss Payan. SPA accounts and Hoaxes. What a surprise. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 04:22, 22 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptol[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a procedural AFD. The Cryptol article was previously on AFD and DRV here:

The AFD was a Delete, the DRV was endorsed as the delete, no prejudice against recreation with sourcing.

SilkTork found a couple of sources, and moved it back to main space based on the closing statement of the DRV, and there was a little disagreement about venue for further review. So, I'm going with his suggestion on my talk page to bring this back to AFD, rather than DRV. Is the current sourcing, and/or the sourcing I again removed here as not RS, sufficient? To clarify, I don't believe they are, and notability is in question. So, this is a nomination for deletion (again) instead of a DRV, as suggested by SilkTokr and mutually agreed to. I think it's not ready for article space yet. rootology (C)(T) 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting one. The original AfD was held on an earlier version of the article which only had one source, and that was 2 keeps, 2 deletes, and one keep moved to delete. As such a close call is normally kept as No consensus to delete, when it was closed as Delete, a DRV was called. That resulted in 6 endorses and 6 overturns, so was closed as no consensus to overturn. So in both debates the closest one can say is that there was no clear consensus to delete. Since then more sources have been added to the article; three of those sources have been removed as questionable by the nominator as indicated above. As it was previously considered borderline on one source, I should think that with the current three accepted sources, and three debatable sources this is now more acceptable rather than less. Keep. SilkTork *^YES! 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your analysis of the history, it's spot on. I'm torn myself on the notability still, but this is one of those really odd borderline ones. I still actually want to write the article, with sourcing, since it's potentially so interesting as I said in the original AfD. I'm down for neither keep nor delete on this one, since depending on how I look at it I could honestly see myself taking it either way if I were an admin closing this one, just based on the sourcing, before any extra arguments come in past this. rootology (C)(T) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, if you're not nominating it for deletion withdraw this drama. --KP Botany (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two presented conference papers meet the requirements of WP:N as far as I can see. JulesH (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Cryptology (album) is not related to this AfD; I assume it's been picked up by the software because the article title starts with the same letter string. SilkTork *^YES! 10:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep borderline notability is still notability. When we can't decide, the article should stay. If more sources are found, it won;t even be borderline any more. DGG (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: programming languages specific to cryptography are uncommon (outside the NSA and equivalent agencies) and quite interesting for those who follow the field of cryptography. Also, a google scholar search provides more references. —Noah 05:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So, it's not being nominated for deletion? Then don't nominate it for deletion. The page for this discussion about sources is the article's talk page. --KP Botany (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a deletion nomination, since I wasn't sure still about the notability of the subject, the same as I wasn't in the first AfD. SilkTork suggested AfD over DRV to figure it out, I agreed, and here we are. Like I wrote above, I'm still on the fence, but it looks like it's a lot clearer now. :) rootology (C)(T) 06:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please, get up there on top and include your reason for nominating this article for deletion. You have not offered one, merely the opportunity to chat with you about your ideas about sources. This latter, what you offer, belongs on the article talk page. If you don't know whether or not you think it should be deleted, and offer no reason for deleting it, because you don't have one, don't waste the time of other folks here, withdraw this and put your article discussion issue on the article discussion page. Otherwise, I request this non-nomination for deletion to be deleted.
From the page on articles for deletion, the instructions, "Give a reason for the deletion and a category for the debate (instructions will be on the page)." --KP Botany (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know how AfD works. :) I cleared it up. rootology (C)(T) 06:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Okay, what's insufficient about the sources, according to policy, rather than according to your beliefs? And what do you question about notability, again, according to policy? --KP Botany (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's acceptable to bring articles here for discussion without having a firm opinion one way or the other, or even with a firm conviction that the article should be kept. If a person sees that there may be questions about an article's suitability for inclusion on WIkipedia then it is right to bring it here for discussion regardless of one's personal feelings. These are discussions which help inform our inclusion criteria, they are not simple tally counts. SilkTork *^YES! 15:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see AfDs informing anything. A year away and it's the same issue: editors without knowledge of a subject nominate an article for deletion for reasons that do not hold up in the discussion, then the editor keeps changing his mind about the reason in an attempt to get the article deleted. One of the issues about this article was that the topic was too new. My textbook is used, and one of the references is four or five years old. How is four or five years old too new a topic for an encyclopedia? It isn't. The problem with this article is the language is too technical for a high web presence. In other words, as usual, the real issue at an AfD is g-hits.

The place to inform about inclusion criteria is on the discussion page for inclusion criteria, not on a single AfD about a highly specialized topic. Who do you think you're going to gather to discuss the inclusion criteria for data streaming cryptographic programming languages? --KP Botany (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The better inclusion guidelines evolved from discussions on AfD. Some inclusion essays are written from the opposite end of the telescope by individuals who have their own notions of what should be notable - such essays do not get accepted as guidelines and are not considered part of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even the inclusion guidelines which have evolved from the consensus demonstrated in AfDs don't trump actual AfD discussions - the guidelines are there to assist by indicating common outcomes so we don't have the same discussions over and over again, but in each AfD it is the application of logic and good sense to the individual case in hand, informed by Wikipedia policies, and assisted by reference to prior consensus, that carries the day. When a trend emerges in AfDs this trend is carried over into the inclusion guidelines. This is, of course, a simplistic summary, as the guidelines are informed by discussions and activity that take place all over Wikipedia, and are - unfortunately, also sometimes diverted by the opinions of strong individuals who might insert material into the guidelines and resist having these opinions removed. However, AfD is not simply a mindless bureaucratic process in which articles are weighed and dumped, what is said here does matter. SilkTork *^YES! 17:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If this were used to discuss articles that individuals felt should be deleted for specific reasons, all such discussions could contribute. But when it's merely used for repeat AfDs, when even the nominator is not certain of the reason, when editors who know almost nothing about the topic, and don't even read the references, and use reasons that don't exist for the nominations, it's only one more place where single-minded editors are attempting to enforce their policies by catching editors off guard. If this were about policy it would be a civil discussion on the policy page. If this were about the article and its quality of references it would be a civil discussion on its talk page. But it's about neither. Someone had never heard of this on the internet, and it had limited "g-hits," so, here it is up for nomination, based on it not being old enough, on it not having any references, issues already dealt with. We're not going to agree in this discussion, and it's wasting enough of my time already. If there were strongly apparent reasons for deleting this article its nominator would not have required so much guidance in forming a coherent nomination for deletion. --KP Botany (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where KPBotany is coming from. It's true that running AfDs for their own sake is policy wonking that we ought not to favor. However, it strikes me that if this article's status was previously somewhat unclear because of an ambiguous AfD and an ambiguous DRV, having an outcome that is clear and unambiguous is a good thing. Therefore endorse holding this repeat AfD as a good faith effort to get a clear outcome (and not just policy wonking) with thanks to the nominator. Further, on the question of sourcing, my review of the article suggests that the sourcing is now adequate and the topic is notable, so keep the article itself. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much policy wonking on Wikipedia I may be seeing it where it isn't, but, this does seem to me to be policy wonking. I'm not interested in policy. I'm interested in writing good and useful articles. I hate to have my time detracted from that for something so pointless as this. --KP Botany (talk) 06:10, 24 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. Subject is not notable, closing this early per WP:SNOW. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Weigang[edit]

This was originally tagged for speedy deletion per WP:CSD G1] as utter nonsense. I saw it as claiming the subject headed an organization supporting the former President Bush. I got 12 Google Web hits for the subject +"hero." The organization looks, with all due respect to the former president, not notable to me with Google hits here and being a member of Jewish Task Force is not necessarily notable. So I prodded. Creator deprodded. While I was typing, it was again tagged for speedy. Dlohcierekim 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Patent rubbish, and even if this 'George W. Bush the Hero' organisation is real, 12 Google results is hardly enough to satisfy the need for reliable sources, even were the organisation noteworthy. Cheers. KaySL (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like total nonsense (in the interests of full disclosure, I was the one responsible for the initial speedy tag.) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, and I CSD tagged it second. Totally my mistake; I thought the article creator had removed it. Sorry. KaySL (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. happens to us all. Dlohcierekim 20:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply to albert after multi ec's-- At first, I thought so too. The third time I read it, a light dawned.The Web page for the organization claims 78,000 hits. Dlohcierekim 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable. All I can find are forum posts and YouTube materials, nothing that satisified WP:Notability or WP:BIO. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy -obviously Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organization is clearly not notable; the founder, even less so. Graymornings_(talk) 21:48, 21 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. kur ykh 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyriciss[edit]

The only information I can find on this guy are on message boards. And the article itself is unreliable as well; the "references" are mainly unrelated clothing lines and save for the first external link (which leads to a blog), the rest of the links lead to YouTube videos. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--there is no way this person meets WP:N for musicians. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search on Google News archives, and also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but could not find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless some reliable sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:16, 23 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 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Espiritu Santo Parochial School (ESPS)[edit]

Delete no indication that this school is other than the typical elementary one or is otherwise notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. 空手道 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, the diocese of this Catholic school. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila. This is usual practice with otherwise nn Catholic schools and is analogous to a merge of a public school to a school district. TerriersFan (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - not notable. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect To Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:04, 25 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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Bielski[edit]

Article concerns an 80 year old man who has lived in obscurity for some 60 years. As a teenager, Bielski was a member of the Bielski partisans, whose exploits were recently examined in the movie Defiance (2008 film). Article focuses on his arrest two years ago, which I have attempted to remove as unrelated to his notability under WP:NPF. This article should be deleted or merged with Bielski partisans, with criminal allegations removed. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article's creator). It's an interesting case, but I think the fact that he is a hero of a movie has gained him enough notability to make him, well, notable (we have articles about much less notable fictional movie characters, after all). His criminal troubles are well documented, and his role in the movie (and in the book it is based on) even more so. I particularly find it strange that Setsonharry first argued that the info on Aron should be moved from article on the movie (Defiance_(2008_film)) to the article on Bielski partisans ([5], [6] - this I can understand), but then removed the addition he himself suggested from that article ([7])) and now wants to delete the article about that person on question. While I do think Aron is notable, I could see his stubby article (until it can be further expanded) merged back into Bielski partisans - but the censorship of the information on his criminal record (here's another example) seems a bit too much.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Present in web pages including Israeli Yad Vashem and Polish Institute of National Remembrance as well as in many books and newspapers. Aron's old age (recent trouble with the law) is not an argument for deletion.--Jacurek (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there seems to be suitable sources here, and the person is notable enough. Arrests for felonies carrying life sentences are things worth noting in a biography, and are objectively verifiable, at least in the US and most countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just to clarify, I believe this person lacks notability separate from his activities with the Bielski partisans, which he belonged to as a teenager, and as you can see there is a separate article on that. There appears to be nothing else to add except the arrest, which I object to under WP:BLP. If this article is allowed to stand, and if it does not simply rehash Bielski partisans, then this article will be a very short one simply describing his arrest. I think that would make it tantamount to an "attack article." An article should not exist primarily to disparage its subject. --Stetsonharry (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above delete vote is by the nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By your definition of attack article, Richard Reid (shoe bomber) is one. Arrests for serious felonies are serious verifiable business, and we're talking about one sentence, not the eight out of nine paragraphs RR gets on his serious felony.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all comparable. Richard Reid is a public figure and notable because of the attempted shoe bombing. Bielski is a non-public figure notable for his involvement in the partisan group 65 years ago, not for his arrest at age 80. --Stetsonharry (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I added a number of reliable sources. This is a stub waiting for a major expansion. --Poeticbent talk 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Weak article, notable subject. There are hundreds of Gnews hits for the individual, including quite a bit of information about him, all non-trivial mentions from multiple, reliable, third-party sources. For example see this article asserting he is now the sole survivor of the partisans: http://lohud.com/article/20090121/NEWS02/901210331/-1/newsfront Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep There are many notable sources without dealing with the arrest. A mention of the arrest is also appropriate giving it due weight (say a sentence or two, not much more). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: LOL the nom almost reads like "keep !vote" it's so comprehensive. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:58, 22 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Roberts[edit]

We don't need both this article and that on Seth Material, as you can see by this article mainly only discussing that subject. Numerous admins and other users have attempted to merge the two articles, only to be reverted by a fan or two of the subject. That so many users have attempted to merge the two articles shows the consensus view, but we can't get it to stick so need the definitive verdict of the wider wiki community. Personally I would merge Seth Material into this one rather than the other way round, but then again she's really not notable for her poems etc, only for the Seth Material, and all the coverage on that which is in this aticle is also in the Seth Material article, so effectively, these are duplicate articles with any other stuff Jane Roberts did not being notable independent of the Seth Material, and if it weren't for that her other works would not be discussed, and are not discussed independently. Sticky Parkin 19:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a biographical article, the only relevance for deletion is whether or not it fits WP:BIO. As far as I can see, there have been enough articles by secondary sources written about her to justify an article. The other arguments above seem mostly relevant to improving the article, which as a number of editors will say, is not grounds for deletion.TheRingess (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ONEEVENT. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; ditto ScienceApologist. Simon Dodd (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced, meets WP:BIO. This is the wrong forum to propose a merge per WP:ATD. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content here usefully contextualises the other article, but would wither after a merge due to reduced obvious relevance to its new home - I'd rather have the option of detecting relevance myself. Also I'm not convinced WP:ONEEVENT applies to decades of work. K2709 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge other This article needs to be kept, but the Seth Material should be merged into it, rather than vice versa. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets WP:BIO so no grounds for deletion. This article and Seth Material are each notable in their own right - but in any case, initiating an AfD is not the correct way to propose a merger. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This was discussed on one talkpage or t'other not so long ago - why are we still here? - Eldereft (cont.) 22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe because there was no consensus to merge in this discussion or in this AfD. But you have a good point - there is no good reason to have to discuss essentially the same issue for a third time in two months. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Merge As I say below, the Seth Material information is too lengthy to be contained in a biographical article. If the two articles were merged, there would then be attempts by the detractors of these articles to truncate the Seth Material information because it would be too long for the resulting biographical article. Eventually, after I read Roberts' biography (which I haven't done yet, surprisingly), the Jane Roberts article will be filled out with more information about her life. (There are other editors who have read her biography, so I don't know why that hasn't already been done.) At the same time, the text which is redundant with the Seth Material article will be removed.-Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets our criteria for biographies; attempting to apply our policy on people notable for only a single event stretches that idea past breaking point, I think. We do not do merge proposals via AFD for articles sufficient for inclusion on their own, and I oppose attempts to do so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an author whose books have sold from 5 to 7 million copies (depending on which source is checked), Jane Roberts is notable without any doubt. She wrote other books that were not about the Seth Material, therefore the two articles cannot be combined without blurring topics that are not the same. Also, other individuals have "channeled" the Seth personality - as reported by reliable sources - that is another point of difference showing that the two topics are not the same. The nominator stated that "Numerous admins and other users have attempted to merge the two articles, only to be reverted by a fan or two of the subject" - that is incorrect. If the supporters of merging were numerous, how could "a fan or two" succeed in stopping the merge? They could not. As Gandalf61 pointed out, there have already been at least two debates about merging or deleting these topics and the results of both were to keep them as separate articles. I am not a fan of Jane Roberts or the Seth Material by the way, though I find them each notable enough for an individual topic page - based on WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The massive number of references show she's been discussed in multiple reliable sources thus meeting inclusion criteria. A failed merge discussion or two should not result in a deletion debate. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having articles about both an author and their work is common practice and encouraged by WP:SS - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets all of the criteria set forth in WP:BIO and that alone should suffice in order to keep the article. It is well-referenced and has a number of reliable sources. Roberts wrote a number of books that were independent of the "Seth Material" and thus if necessary a merge could be debated but AfD is not the place to discuss a merge, and this topc has been exhausted on the talkpages of both articles. Check the archives. NoVomit (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, actually, a merge is a common outcome of the AfD process so this is a place to discuss merging, if people so choose.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep- per morven and jack-a-roe. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone asked me where I got the sales figures for the Jane Roberts books - I did a quick Google search and found there are many sources for that info. Here are a few of them: "Moment Point Books "Jane Roberts’ books have sold over 7.5 million copies"; Chapters/Indigo Bookstore chain "sold over 8 million copies and been translated into over a dozen languages"; Kenneth S. Kantzer, Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry,Evangelical Affirmations, page 143, Academie Books, 1990, ISBN 0310595312 "at least 7 million books" ; "bookreview.com "Over 7.5 million of her books have been sold around the world". There are more, that's just a random selection. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question That may be correct, but how do we know that someone didn't pick a random figure and then everyone copied it? dougweller (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Maybe because he numbers are different? 70.186.172.214 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Over 7.5 million of her books have sold throughout the world" is also printed on the back cover of the biography Speaking of Jane Roberts by journalist Susan M. Watkins, Moment Point Press (2000) ISBN 0966132777. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The likelihood is that the sales figures are higher now. Roberts' books continue to sell, although slowly, because she holds such a prominent position in New Age thinking. They were all reissued by a new publisher in the late 1990's and early 2000's.-Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the one who wrote most of the Jane Roberts and Seth Material articles. Originally, the Seth Material article was part of the Jane Roberts article, and it was repeatedly suggested that the Seth Material section be given its own article. The reason was that the Seth Material section, which was not biographical in any way, had become lengthy and was not appropriate for a biographical article. Recently, someone nominated the Seth Material article for deletion and the decision was Speedy Keep. That being the case, it makes no sense to delete her biographical article and keep the article on her work.

In my opinion, Sticky Parkin is acting in bad faith. For whatever reason, he wants to get rid of this entire subject from the encyclopedia, though he knows that there are plenty of editors who want it to stay. Roberts sold millions of books, and the Seth Material is a cornerstone of New Age philosophy, so these topics are entirely notable. If there is information repeated between the two articles, that is the fault of Sticky Parkin and his pals. When they started to attack the Seth Material article a couple months ago, they moved text from Seth Material to Jane Roberts, hoping to thereby have an excuse to delete the Seth Material article altogether. At that time, they openly said that once the Seth Material article was merged back into Jane Roberts, that would give them an excuse to cut down the Seth Material portion. Now that there's been a ruling to keep the Seth Material article, the obvious thing to do is to eliminate the repetitive information from the Jane Roberts article. I myself have deleted the duplicate information, only to have it restored by editors who are intent on merging the articles and truncating the total amount of information. Both articles are routinely attacked by skeptics and atheists who don't like what they say, and I view this attempt to delete Jane Roberts as just another attack. Wikipedia doesn't need self-appointed censors.-Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, I'm off the fence. Even leaving aside the accusation of bad faith, the number of Roberts' Seth and non-Seth works would make a single article on her and all her books impossibly large. Keep per WP:SNOW, I am tempted to say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict- reply mainly to the allegations etc by CM) I have replied to this breach of WP:AGF and hastle on my talk page by CM thusly "Whatever. Numerous people think there's no need for both articles, as evidenced by the many attempts to merge them. I'm not acting in bad faith- just according to notability policy and consensus of several editors. Please WP:AGF rather than having a go at other editors. I just don't think we need both these articles, which are mainly on the same subject (numerous other editors think we don't need one, or possibly both, of them either.) An ok job has been done on the SM article but we don't need both of them. Just mine and many other editor's opinion. Sorry if you mistrust people having different opinions than you, but please WP:AGF :) " To explain, I have even read the Seth Material in the past but I don't agree with an attem to overstate it and JR's importance. The SM article has now been made quite good, (see the state it was in a couple of months ago) but we don't need both, for what else is JR particularly notable (though I would probably merge SM into her article.) I'm just following many other editor's views on these articles in the past and formed an AfD. Unlike some I do not just edit on a few articles, I have what I believe to be the good of the encyclopedia at heart and my opinion of these articles is far from unique. I am an established part of the project that has edited many articles, giving various perspectives on theological and other issues. Unlike some :):):):) I am not a WP:SPA :) Just trying to do what other editors have tried to do before me on these articles, and what I think should be done. And no it wouldn't be over long as all the info except about a paragraph about JR's oh so notable poems would be the same and so need not be copied. It's not WP:SNOW as several editors have said we should just have one of these articles (which is what people want. But ok, if people want duplicate articles:) Sticky Parkin 23:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic to hear you argue that the resulting merged article won't be "over long". The gang of editors who started attacking the Seth Material article a couple months ago (which included you) kept saying that the article was too long and needed to be cut. If one argument doesn't work, you'll try another argument.-Caleb Murdock (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:ONEEVENT, nom, Eldereft, etc. Verbal chat 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Yale University Library considers Jane Roberts notable enough that they maintain an archive of her life's work. The archive includes the Seth Material, but it also includes her other work, both published and unpublished. Here is their description of the contents: "The papers consist of correspondence, printed material, audio and videotapes, journals, poetry, and other papers documenting the personal life and literary career of Jane Roberts." "Guide to the Jane Roberts Papers". Jane Roberts Papers, Manuscript Group 1090. Manuscripts and Archives. Yale University Library. 2006-01-30.. Are the kilobytes of a Wikipedia page more exclusive that 115 linear feet in the Yale University Library archives? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment just to say that I don't know what this CM editor is talking about with his accusations against me. Yes I tried to merge SM into JR months or weeks ago but I'm by far from the first as several editors are of the same opinion. Hence I brought it to AfD for further discussion as the people editing the articles had reached an empasse. Anyway, just thought I'd set the record straight as he has been warned for personal attacks. If you read what I've said I didn't say JR isn't notable, all I think is we don't need both this articles and the amount of coverage is WP:UNDUE, plus her primary work was to do with the seth material, I doubt you will find any source discussing her that doesn't discuss that or vice versa. I wouldn't call it WP:ONEVENT as it's not about an event, but it could be argued that there's no independent notability. Sticky Parkin 21:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)h[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under the snowball clause. This does not preclude an editorial merge discussion. lifebaka++ 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Benin[edit]

Barely notable, no secondary sources. Vanity topic can be covered in LGBT rights in Africa. Aurush kazemini^talk 19:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A new article that addresses the topic, certainly not a "Vanity topic" in the scope of LGBT rights across the African continent and around the world. If there is a genuine interest in merging this elsewhere, that should have been handled by proposing a merge on the article's talk page. Alansohn (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human rights in Africa unless some real sources can be added (and an actual intro wouldn't hurt either). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. "Barely notable"?! "Vanity topic"?! Don't be ridiculous, Benin is a country of 8.5m people. Having LGBT articles on each country seems to be both established practice and sensible. the wub "?!" 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's just there for the sake of being there, the topic may be reasonably important, but the article is flaccid at best Aurush kazemini^talk 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I understand it, when considering deletion we should weigh up an article's potential worthiness for inclusion, not just its current quality. It suffers a little from dearth of readily-available free online coverage, but I believe an expert in the field could find more. Sources like this one appear to show that this is a topic with extant coverage in reliable sources and would provide the basis for a good article here. Gonzonoir (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if it was just this one largely empty page, of insubstantial content, I'd support delete or merge. The problem is it page appears to be one of a constellation of pages, one per country (at first glance), detailing the current status of lgb rights in African countries. Why is this article, of all of them, different enough to be nominated for deletion? I would think these stand or fall as a class: either all these pages get merged into one page like lgb rights in africa (except for those that genuinely do stand apart in terms of having substantial content), which would seem the best solution, or they all stay, which would seem the path of least resistance.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if it were more topical, i wouldn't support deletion - but it duplicates information that could just as easily go on the LGBT rights in Africa page. i'd offer the others for deletion at a later date too if they're insubstantial, but i don't see much point in making tons of deletes if everyone is going to just oppose them, and since the conversation will be the same on all these pages we may as well just settle such matters here; if necessary, this consensus/discussion can be referenced later. i think a quick, easy source for all this information is better than a bunch of individual articles that have limited value. there's nothing wrong with expanding subarticles for those that are more topical, so, for now, Delete. Aurush kazemini^talk 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - no substantial content (and in fact the content is not even factual as it is an interpretation of the law of Benin, and not what the law actually states), and as others have pointed out, an overview article on human or gay rights in Africa is the better place for the information. Thanks, Afroghost (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Not factual"? Reliable sources disagree with you (e.g., [8]). The content of the article appears to be correct to me. JulesH (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly the victim of someone thinking Benin just isn't that notable a country, this is systemic bias in action. National subarticles for topics like LGBT rights are clearly verifiable, notable, and necessary to keep the main LGBT rights article from getting bloated. Steven Walling (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Pointing out systemic bias is considered insulting, and is against Wikipedia's rules, per this discussion with a Wikipedia administrator. This is not allowed, and your comment should be disappeared from the project page. SmashTheState (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well it wasn't pointing out systematic bias that got you the insult warning, it was calling fellow editors "computer nerds" and "Asperger and OCD shut-ins". TastyCakes (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking for some explanation of this frankly nonsensical deletion debate has led me to conclude that this is in fact some moronic spin off of you two (above) users and at least one poorly executed sock puppet fighting about politics, and deleting articles that each think will piss off the other. For christ sakes, grow up. If you can't interact on Wikipedia without creating a massive waste of time for other people, then sign off and go outside. Can we get an admin to close this? T L Miles (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While my involvement may have been the motivation for some of Aurush's AFD nominations, I have had nothing to do with this article or nomination (until getting annoyed at SmashTheState's obnoxious claim above). As for the rest of it, I'm sorry I let myself get into these pointless (if not outright counter productive) arguments with Smash and his buddies. TastyCakes (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the LGBT rights in... articles have "Gay life in..." that are quite useful. I just added this section and added that an Anglican LGBT group was established in Benin in 2006 (sourced, natch). Information on Benin is difficult to find in English, but it will come and I favor keeping this stub article so it can grow. As it is now, the article has encyclopedic information that is not found in the LGBT rights in Africa tables. As I'm poking around, I see we can do a lot better in general on the coverage of LGBT in Africa. There are lots of organizations and websites with information that should be covered. Scarykitty (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Virtually all countries have LGBT rights articles (and those that do not, are having them added). Many of these articles are stubs, and will be fleshed out. The LGBT rights in country articles have suffered from some neglect in the past, but numerous editors add information to the various country and continent rights tables per week. African and Asian LGBT rights in (country) articles are especially notable because many countries in Africa (and some in Asia) still criminalize homosexual acts, some even having the death penalty. It should also be noted that the LGBT rights in Africa article chiefly consists (at this time) of a transcluded table which appears on both that article & the Homosexuality laws of the world article. Merging the data into the above article would be sloppy and also remove the LGBT rights Benin article from being in the appriopriate Benin categories. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this is a clearly notable topic, per Outsider80, and deleting it would be a case of systemic bias if we weren't also to remove those articles that pertain to Western nations. If deleted, we would, in effect, be saying that the climate of LGBT life in Benin is not as important as LGBT life in the United States. Instead of doing the "easy" thing and sending this to deletion, we should be trying to find English articles and/or a user who knows French that could search for French articles to add sourcing and more information. AfD isn't for poor quality articles that are on notable subjects. SMSpivey (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see why not. GLBT issues are quite contemporary and important. I believe they definitely have a place on Wikipedia. This article is encyclopedic. We need more articles like this and less articles like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strummingbabe (talk • contribs) 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: either LGBT rights are not notable, or Benin is not notable, or the article is poor. The first two assertions are (apart from anything else) not consistent with wikipedia articles on LGBT rights or national topics. If the last is your argument, you could have researched and improved it in the time it took to engage in this deletion exercise. If this is a "Vanity topic" then you are considering the attention to either all people of LGBT sexual orientation or an entire nation "Vanity". Either is absurd. "Can be covered in...": Communications in Benin can be covered in Communications in Africa, but certain topics are considered (in practice) "basic topics" by nation. LGBT rights are now generally so considered. If you feel they should not be generally, well that is an entirely different argument, and you should take it up elsewhere. Or else you should not respond to things with which you personally disagree by trying to remove Wikipedia articles about it. T L Miles (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is clearly very poor, and most of those similar articles are both poor and nearly orphaned. i have no objection to the topic, i just want it in a place where it's clear and organized --- most of this is covered in LGBT rights in Africa, and a simple redirect fixes the problem; i didn't nominate LGBT rights in Zambia because it's topical and well-written. Aurush kazemini^talk 05:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: when you create multiple sock puppets and try to add User boxes so they will seem to be individual users, don't create identical sets of userboxes on more than one, even if you change them later. The "history" tab is viewable by everyone. T L Miles (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is poorly written, which is not a deletion reason. Notable topic, and there are references in the article to outside resources that discuss the topic in detail. Good enough for WP:N purposes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I fail to see any valid reason for deleting this article. Sure, it's a stub, but it's a sourced one on a topic that is clearly notable. Discussions on any possible merge should take place on the article's talk page, not here. JulesH (talk) 09:08, 22 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 Liberty University. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sparky (Mascot)[edit]

Non-notable team mascot. Padillah (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability is cited, which so far it is not. Dicklyon (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep to show notability, Liberty U. is a major university in virginia, the topic is probably relevant, but maybe it could be merged with Liberty University? Aurush kazemini^talk 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sparky has become a major personality on campus and gained regional and national attention recently by finishing as the runner-up in the 2008 Capital One Bowl mascot challenge. Liberty University Athletics have also risen to recent prominence with the record breaking success of their Men's Football team, and Men's and Women's Basketball teams. The latest buzz has been concerning freshman standout Seth Curry. Liberty Athletics also won the Sasser Cup last year (given to the champion school in the Big South at the end of the year), and is in strong contention to repeat that honor this year. With the rise to prominence of the athletics program, Sparky the mascot plays a very prominent role in promoting Liberty University Athletics. (G man 450 (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G man 450 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please find citations and put that information in the article. You may also want to mark the article with a ((hangon)) template for the time being. Padillah (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the new info and citations and the hangon tag (I think I added it correctly). Let me know if I can do anything else to bring this page into Wikipedia standards so it is not removed. (G man 450 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Merge Quite a few other establishments have their mascot on the establishment page. This is noteworthy in that context, but I can't see it meriting a separate page. Peridon (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Notable in the context of the university, but not independently. Thus, should be merged rather than a stand-alone article. Steven Walling (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with the above, no evidence of individual notability or second party coverage of this subject. --neon white talk 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SELFPUB. While primary sources can be used when citing uncontroversial material, you can't rely on such sources to support an entire article. Mentioning the mascot in combination with the team is a reasonable idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but what makes the other mascot pages, many of which have less information and a less prominent figure involved, substantial enough to stand alone? (G man 450 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I haven't seen them, but would imagine my opinion would be the same. Peridon (talk)

Merge with team page/university page. Plastikspork (talk) 20:42, 22 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ant Neely[edit]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. Composing themes for (notable) TV/film is criterion 10 – works are listed at IMDB. Has seemily written episodes of Six Feet Under and Boston Legal. Cycle~ (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Person is subject of articles in multiple reliable sources and while I can't find any mention of Six Feet Under, Boston Legal, and Samantha Who in any of the references mentioned besides IMDB, the Sprookjesboom is verified, thus significant involvement in a TV show is proven. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added links to HBO's site etc for his 'Six Feet Under' credits, plus a Las Vegas credit with ref - sorry, bit of a newb. User:Haroldschwartz —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:04, 22 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. Tone 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipsia[edit]

Seemingly non-notable book, author is currently nominated for speedy. Cycle~ (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per WP:BK. Has a few google hits, but only because it has been submitted to free classified sites and self-publishing outfits like LuLu.com. I think this is a textbook example of vanispamcruftisement. --Dawn Bard (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not WikiBooks. Spiesr (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never heard of it. Oops, sorry, that's not a policy argument. But hardly anyone else seems to have heard of it either. I've looked in the usual places for SF books, no joy. Self-published, not notable, and could have been speedied as blatant advertising. dougweller (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self published fiction is almost never notable, and I see no evidence that this book is the exception. JulesH (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self published on Lulu, not notable. Shsilver (talk) 16:40, 22 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 Rock of Love. Although points such as the entertainer notability guidelines were brought up, these are countered by the equally valid argument of the person being notable for only one event. When redirecting an article, you simply replace the article's text with a redirect. Deleting the article would mean that the article would need to be recreated just to redirect, which is pointless unless the page is bad enough that the previous versions need to be hidden away from the history tab. Because of this, the discussion has been closed as Redirect with this being performed over the top of the original article. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Kinni[edit]

Delete and redirect: Only notable for appearance on a reality show and its spin-off. ~~A bio for a person with similar notability evidence, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jes Rickleff, was deleted and redirected.~~ Plastikspork (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Unlike Jes Rickleff, I think Jessica Kinney passes WP:Entertainer. She has had roles in multiple television shows, namely Rock of Love and Charm School. I believe her roles in both shows were notable, and that the shows themselves were notable as well. The argument that an article about Jes Rickleff was deleted, so this one should be deleted too, is simply an exercise in WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. The article on Jessica Kinni needs serious work, such as references to reliable sources. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Rock of Love – The IMDB entry is a plus, but the article is still hopelessly POV and undersourced, with neither problem likely to be resolved. Sure the shows were notable, but this person is not notable for anything unrelated to these shows, making this a textbook WP:ONEEVENT. » šᾦῥъ^{τ • ¢} 21:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Her first show (Rock of Love 2) has an "After the Show" section, which contains information about the contestants. Hence, no information would be necessarily lost through a redirect. Plastikspork (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Rock of Love. Kinni isn't an entertainer fitting to WP:Entertainer, but just has been a candidate in two T.V.-shows and maybe even did some unexpectedly entertaining things there. This is her whole public story, which surely can be told in the articles about the probably very, very notable T.V. shows itselves.--JakobvS (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either add more information or delete and redirect to Rock of Love. Although her appearances are notable on these major television shows, unless (as the article says) she has other work in the entertainment the article should be deleted and redirected to the earlier mentioned "After the Show" section. Chastayo (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independently established notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article in its current form does not establish the notability of the subject, but the article is only a few days old. There is a slight chance that this may be improved given a little more time. decltype 23:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

she's a actress, model and hundred of things more--Luisrafael7 (talk) 22:18, 25 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 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Yards[edit]

Delete the concept is straightforward but apparently is only used by one statistical compiler. It doesn't seem to have mainstream acceptance where a team's or quaterback's passing yards are not qualified by how many were in the air and how many were after the catch. I also note that we don't track this information in our own articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as long as the only source is the proposal for the new stat. Need independent coverage before it can be considered a notable concept. Doesn't really matter whether it's a good stat or a tracked stat, just whether it's notable; so far it doesn't appear to be. Dicklyon (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Advanced NFL Stats where the relevant information is already included. Guest9999 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I follow the NFL and edit articles relating to it and not once have I ever said "where are his air yards?" So easy delete on my part.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a viable search term. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO, not a viable search term nither. Secret ^account 14:30, 27 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. This is more of a procedural keep, as the bus routes are of varying notability, and should not be listed in a bundled discussion –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essex bus route 804[edit]

While some bus routes are notable, school bus routes certainly are not. jenuk1985 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added the above routes to the AfD, also school routes jenuk1985 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, brother. Delete per nom. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if the person nominating is supposed to "vote", but if so... Delete jenuk1985 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on guys, this is a charming essay about a really interesting little bus route. I could read the list of bus stops over and over again ... ~~Delete~~ per nom. Are there really any notable bus routes? I am really having trouble thinking what would make one notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless my school bus routes all get articles too. Otherwise I'm taking my ball and going home! No, seriously, what in the world makes this bus route notable? Did something horrible or criminal happen to bring it into public view? Nope. Just a bus route. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not the giant-brain from Futurama, we don't need every scrap of human knowledge in here.Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My humor should not be viewed as diminishing the work of those who created this article. A ton of work went into it, and it is unfortunate that the route isn't notable, because that is a lot of work going down the tube. All the more reason to make yourself familiar with WP:Notability before creating an article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jo7hs2. A lot of work, full of information, well laid out. Unfortunate that it does not meet the notability criteria. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's worth noting that this isn't against all bus routes, as I believe that some routes, with a notable history should be kept. I will be going through UK bus routes over the next few days to nominate what appear to be non-notable routes. jenuk1985 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Keep I only looked up the first one, but found this: [9]. I suspect enough could be gotten together to make a good article that meets relevant policies. And frankly, I think bus routes in major cities might well be the kind of thing we should have. These are NOT school routes at least not in the sense I'd think of them. They are public bus routes that are in part targeted toward the travel students might need. Hobit (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In which case, how is a bus route that only runs once or twice a day notable enough to have its own article? jenuk1985 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is sources. And it seems likely that a merged article would have enough. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in London - A "parent" article already exists jenuk1985 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like it belongs in the parent article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be one for the 600 series. The main list article seems a bit, well, useless. Some more information (purpose of route, full time, controversies, etc.) would be good. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Are you discussing the 804 article, or other articles? Since there are now several, it might get confusing it we discuss the other nominations here. Also, valid point that this isn't a school route, but rather a school targeted route. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other ones. You're right, it is a bit of a mess. They have different parent articles, yes? Hobit (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I should have clarified, original article has a parent list at List of bus routes in Essex jenuk1985 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close and default to Keep - These are way too many bus routes to batch together in one AfD and I'm troubled that the nom put several London bus routes up for AfD but choose to entitle it "Articles for deletion/Essex bus route 804", the only non-London route nominated. That might deter many users who would be inclined not to delete London bus routes to not bother clicking the AfD link because they're indifferent to Essex bus routes. --Oakshade (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any other school services on Wikipedia, I have looked. jenuk1985 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close (in agreement w/above), default to Keep, and either Merge or Re-AfD separately: I'm changing my position. I also am not comfortable with the confusing tangle that this multiple AfD has become, so I think we should close the AfD. Afterwards, there are multiple possible resolutions, such as merging the non-notable bus routes into the parent articles individually, and with discussion on their talk pages; re-AfD nominating the articles separately and distinctly, and not involving the individual discussions with each other, etc... Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAllow me to clarify. While I'm not always opposed to bundling AfD discussions, in this case I don't think that the articles are sufficiently linked to be discussed in this fashion. The only connection between the Essex and London articles are that they are all bus routes. At a minimum, I would prefer to see this discussion carried out separately for the Essex and London articles. The Essex bus route 804 should have one AfD, and the London articles should be discussed separately from it. That way, we aren't discussing the merits of all bus route articles, but rather the merits of the individual articles based on their notability. I could see bundling the London articles together, although I'd prefer if that were avoided as well. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am o.k. with extending my ~~delete~~ vote to all the bus routes, just because I have a lot of trouble seeing why any bus route could be notable. This is a personal opinion, which I would obviously drop if there were reliable independent sources proving notability. But this seems like a subject where there should be a guideline. Lately in AfD I have come across debates about "lists of people who come from a town", "places of worship", "schools", "soccer teams", "charitable organizations" and now "bus routes", all of which could use some well-considered rule-of-thumb-type guidelines. Does anyone know of a place where these could be found or created? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Above user already voted. --Oakshade (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I voted twice. Once on the first route, then on all the others when they were added. This AfD has got quite confused. The closing decision should be made on force of argument rather than a vote count. On this one, I am very marginal. Technically, I don't think it qualifies. But I remember "Pretty John Watts, We are troubled with rats, Will you drive them out of the house? We have mice, too, in plenty, That feast in the pantry, But let them stay And nibble away, What harm in a little brown mouse?" Aymatth2 (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's are not a vote, so it doesn't really matter if you already "voted" in this discussion. WP:Articles for Deletion Opinions shift or are modified when trying to reach consensus. Regardless, this AfD has gotten to be such a mess that I think we need to close it, as I noted above, despite the fact that I think the article probably should be deleted or merged. This AfD went from discussing a single article to discussing a whole wad of articles and the merits of this type of article, and AfD does not seem to be the best place for this discussion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Sometimes closing admins brush through these without noticing the repeated user signatures. Just making sure. Users shouldn't be adding bold "keep" or "delete" after they already done so. --Oakshade (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. It does make it confusing to read. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out my deletes. Agree with Jo7hs2 comments: this is not the place the discuss the more general question, this debate had got confusing, probably the article should be deleted or merged, but let's leave it for now. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since bus deregulation, bus routes are much too changeable to warrant having WP articles. They are fundamentally unmaintainable. The operators will maintain their sites, but they will not keep WP up to date. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one of the key virtues of Wikipedia is that we can deal with rapidly changing material, as long as there re editors interested in keeping it current. That's one of the aspects of NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 607, which is not a school route. It should not have been included in the nomination. Whatever people's attitude to bus routes in general, this one is of a different degree of notability. A careless nomination and a careless discussion too, since that does not seem to have been noticed. I'm not sure where I stand on bus routes, and I don't know London in detail, but I did read all the articles. DGG (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that the extra articles were bundled after some editors had made a decision on the original Essex bus route article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as Keep These appear to be of varying degrees of significance and should not be bundled together without more careful evaluation. --Polaron | Talk 16:11, 23 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, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Thunderbird[edit]

Lack of reliable external sources and questionable notability. A notability template was placed on the day the article was created, several months ago, and there has been no change in content since. Plastikspork (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep w/reservations~~ see below: I have say that I agree that the notability on this article is questionable, but I see enough mentions that I'm willing to give the article the benefit of the doubt. We are supposed to err on the side of inclusion, and in this case I'm going to have to do that. The individual has been interviewed, filmed, and recorded for a number of television/radio programs that are of smaller viewwership (see: http://www.shannonthunderbird.com/Television%20Sojourns.htm ) and that might be hindering our ability to find sources for those appearances. The biography information is found on Radio CBC (see: http://radio3.cbc.ca/bands/SHANNON-THUNDERBIRD/ ) and on a number of advertising sort of sources (see: http://www.storytellingtoronto.org/Directory_Pages/Dir_ShannonThunderbird.html and http://www.addictionstudies.ca/2006/keynote.html and http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=2818 ) as well. I'm going to have to recommend that we keep this article, with recognition that the sourcing for notability is somewhat questionable causing some reservations about doing so. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have you added those links to the actual article? Plastikspork (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I listed them here for purposes of the notability discussion. If the article is kept, I'll be happy to add the sources that fit. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Heck, I had five minutes. I was able to source the first sentence sufficiently to prove notability in my mind, but some of the other sentences had to be sourced via her website for the time being, and I couldn't find a source for the last sentence. If somebody wants to pick up where I left off, please do. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this article while searching for short, poorly wikified articles in need of clean up. My only reason for posting it on AFD was that I noticed that the lack of reliable sources was not being addressed. If you want to clean it up, I would be happy to support keeping the article. It's hard for me to say if I would support keeping it until I saw the cleaned up version. Thanks for all your help! Plastikspork (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No problem. Let me take a quick look and see what else I can do for it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay, everything in the article is now sourced. Some of it is sourced from her page, but notability is proven via at least two bios, and several other mentions. Currently there are three sources in the article that I feel are close enough to proving notability that I'm comfortable keeping it, and as noted above, there are some other mentions elsewhere. Meets WP:Notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Made some more changes. I'm now totally comfortable saying the article meets notability requirements. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Due to the recent improvements in the article, I retract my initial concerns and now vote to keep. Plastikspork (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Close: As per the nominator's withdrawal, I am recommended a speedy close in addition to my previous recommendation to keep. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:27, 22 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 Indo-European languages. kur ykh 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of Indo-European language[edit]

Redundant to the information provided in Indo-European languages. Unlikely search term. Atmoz (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a redirect will cut it. Nothing to merge. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indo-European_languages; I've also checked all the language articles listed and they are all already included somewhere within Category:Indo-European languages. --MPerel 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indo-European_languages if this term is even needed. Immediately afterwards I would suggest an RfD because I don't know if anyone would have reason to type in Classification of Indo-European language. Valley2city^‽ 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd say curiosity coupled with a bit of errare humanum est would suffice. I'd say there's no need for a lengthy discussion over the death of a fairly legitimate redirect the existence of which wouldn't hurt a soul. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, I tend to usually be quite inclusionist in terms of redirs. In fact, I've created tons of them for very common spelling errors and others. But will people type in this lengthy search string? I'll keep my vote at redir and the existence of another redir is negligable but they add up.Valley2city^‽ 19:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I will answer to the best of my knowledge: I don't know, and I can't say that it's impossible. --Ouro (blah blah) 22:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect as no one will search for this ungrammatical title. —Angr 22:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems perfectly grammatical to me. It's using "language" as the abstract noun encompassing all forms of verbal communication, not as a reference to a specific language, which is a less-used meaning, but still perfectly valid. JulesH (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The abstract "language" can't be modified as "Indo-European", though. Once you add that modifier, you're referring to a specific language (the Proto-Indo-European language) or group of languages (the Indo-European languages). —An gr 07:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ouro's remarks. —Tamfang (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not unlikely at all, not if you study languagesWarrington (talk) 11:08, 23 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 . Three votes to keep (one weak), one delete, one merge, one move (the move and merge amount to the same thing). A consensus that this information should somehow appear on the encyclopedia, but disagreement as to the format, adds up to no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 05:54, 27 January 2009‎ (UTC)

Frank Smith (fireman)[edit]

I declined the speedy deletion of this article, as his significance is at least asserted. However, he only seems to be significant for one event, the last regular service steam engine run in the UK. Per WP:BLP1E, if he's not notable for anything else, his information should be included in the article concerning that steam engine run. If there isn't one, then this article should be deleted. Aervanath (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very well argued above. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - associated to a single event with no other notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the event is okay for me. -- Whpq (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That one event suggests that this man was the last man employed to do what he did in the UK. That seems to me to establish historical interest in him. JulesH (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Last UK steam engine run (or something similar) - I agree with JulesH, but we should cover the event, not the person. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will move and alter the entry to cover the event, rather than the person as suggested above if you wish to delete it. Thank you for your comments. He was the last person to be utilised as a fireman in the UK in this way which may be classed as historical significance, but as you say unless notable for more than one reason this may not be appropriate for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yippykiaye (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In some cases, a single event can be sufficient to be notable. Being the last person to be employed in a particular occupation is, in my opinion, such an event. If the general consensus doesn't agree with me, I believe the article should be userfied since the author is clearly interested in rewriting it to discuss the event rather than the person. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep In many cases, a single event can be notable--if it's for something that's actually significant, or an historic accomplishment. The question is whether this is in that class, or rather in the class of people who happen to be involved in an accident, or win a lottery. Frankly, I'm not sure. But in this case, the event is notable, and the clearest way to have an article on it is by having one on the person--there's no good way of evading the issue, like our customary "Murder of X."

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Destiney Sue Moore[edit]

Delete and redirect: Only known for her appearance on one reality show and its spin-offs. May become more notable in the future, but cannot be predicted. ~~A bio for a person with similar notability evidence, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jes Rickleff, was deleted and redirected.~~ Plastikspork (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And redirect to the original article on the television show. The many anecdotes that happen in many T.V.-shows don't make own BIOs of everyone involved necessary.--JakobvS (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Unlike Jes Rickleff, Destiney Sue Moore passes WP:Entertainer because she has had significant roles in multiple notable television shows, namely Rock of Love, I Love Money, and Charm School. The article, however, needs serious work. It has no references to any reliable sources and is filled with POV. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Rock of Love – no references (no good ones probably exist), and a low-quality POV tone that I doubt anyone really intends to fix. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jes Rickleff. » šᾦῥъ^{τ • ¢} 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any POV can be edited out and since she's been on more than one show, WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply and redirecting to any one of those shows means we lose info on the other two. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not necessarily true, the page for her first show (Rock of Love 2) has an "After the Show" section, which contains information about the contestants. Hence, no information would be necessarily lost through a redirect. Plastikspork (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:18, 21 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. Tone 22:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subrion CMS[edit]

lacks notability for software. 16x9 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find reliable third-party sources. JulesH (talk) 09:14, 22 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. kur ykh 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meroo[edit]

Although I love languages, Meroo (or Merovian)---the article uses both---seems to be a non-notable constructed language. I offer no opinion as to whether it should be kept or deleted. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, tag added, copyright violation of this page [10] Theseeker4 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have fixed the copyvio so this can have a discussion here, although it will probably go for not being notable, notability not being verifiable, being made up in one day, being a hoax etc. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note2 - this might be recreation of deleted content as well. The user User talk:Ar4a has previously created Merō and Merō izaka. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the link is to a forum which says "Our users have posted a total of 1 article; we have 1 registered user." This looks like something made up one day - anyway, fails WP:V, I have searched without finding anything relevant. JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been updated, [11] - this page is by my administration, it is page which is registered in [forumotion.com].

Note - I try all my best to do this article readable. I'm new here, yet fast learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar4a (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - readability is not the problem, the problem is notability which requires "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Your only references are your own web-site and your own unpublished book. It is unlikely that a language made up in 2007 with only three speakers is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. More on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 22 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. Tone 22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Vale[edit]

Never played a orofessional game of football - exploits in last paragraph are in non-league football which is a level too low to pass WP:ATHLETE. Dweller (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw Dweller's comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Steve Vale - notable? and did a proposed deletion, until I noticed this. In addition to not playing at the top level, this also lacks evidence for reliable sources. --Pretty Green (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic example of a player who was signed by a professional club, never made the team, then drfited into obscurity never to be seen again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, never made it. nothing of note represented in article.--ClubOranje^Talk 18:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: proof for those who think that signing a contract is unvarying proof that a career will inevitably follow. Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 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. kur ykh 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drexel Squash[edit]

Non-notable student org. Fails WP:ORG and WP:CLUB and no reliable third party sources can be/have been found. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 16:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Schuym1 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interdimensional hypothesis[edit]

Although the topic is moderately notable, I see nothing of encyclopedic quality here, and no reputable sources, in spite of the fact that the article dates back to 2005 Looie496 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although those sources are questionable, there are always more out there. They just have to be found. flaming lawye r^c 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So go and find them. Airily waving your hands going "There must be sources" is only going to keep this article languishing in its current unacceptable state indefinitely. Reyk _YO! 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bear in mind that your efforts in this regard are no greater than xyr efforts. Editors not looking for sources themselves is the problem. Decrying others whilst doing exactly the same thing onesself is not helpful to Wikipedia. AFD relies upon all editors putting in the legwork to look for sources. Otherwise the layers of Swiss Cheese don't exist and things go wrong. Uncle G (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As written, this is not an encyclopedic article, but I would think that some sources for this topic could be found. I could easily change my vote if better sources pop up. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article improvement tags have been there for more than a year now. If it hasn't been fixed by now then chances are it won't get fixed by waiting another year. However, would suggest deleting "without prejudice" so that in the future, should someone create an acceptable article, this won't be precluded by deletion now.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though I find the general topic interesting -- I've read Rick Strassman's book which is mentioned in the article. This looks uncomfortably like a massive exercise in WP:OR. If sufficient references can be found (rather than presumed to exist), could be OK to keep. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic satisfies WP:N and WP:V. For example, according to the History Channel: "There are multiple theories about the existence of extra-terrestrials. The two main theories are called the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the Interdimensional Hypothesis of unidentified flying objects...The Interdimensional Hypothesis of unidentified flying objects, also known as IH...was advanced by the astrophysicist Jacques Vallee, the same man who thought up of the Vallee method of categorization." [12]. More references can be found. Though the topic is not mainstream, and it's not science, it is notable as a cultural artifact. Article needs work, but that's not a reason to delete.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Topic should be covered under UFO religion article. This is a POV fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strassman is the only source that could possibly be reliable and his quoted speculations don't seem to cover the same ground as the bulk of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I am now convinced that the sources provided are no sufficiently reliable and it's unlikely anything better will be found. Reyk _YO! 01:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that include Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, cited by Jack-A-Roe above? Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Article appears to be little more than a quotefarm of quotes taken from blogs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The History Channel reference is sufficient for notability, and should be quoted in the article, which certainly needs a rewrite for NPOV. DGG (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, not notable enough - History Channel isn't a reliable source for this (and not that About.com is, but the editor there says this hypothesis is 'far behind' the 2 leading ones, experimental government craft and aliens [13]. Anyone notice that a vandal stuck in an email address in July 2007 and it's still there? dougweller (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The History Channel isn't the source. Has any editor commenting on it actually read the page? It's clearly marked as being a copy of an article in the 2006 edition of Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant for notability, I don't think it is a reliable source for claiming notability or at least sufficient, a reply to the comment directly above mine. But I could have worded it better, because the rest of my sentence is about the differing view about the interdimensionalhypothesis. dougweller (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are still challenging the source on the grounds of reliability (rather than some other grounds), then. How is Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia unreliable, exactly? Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My philosophy is that an article should not be kept merely because it would be possible to write a valid article about the topic. Unless the existing article has at least some encyclopedic content, there is no reason to keep it. Nothing prevents a new version with better content being created later. Looie496 (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be your personal philosophy, but Wikipedia's philosophy is outlined in Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which state that we don't delete articles that are simply in need of cleanup (which is any improvement to the article that can be done by editors using the edit button, including rewriting — for which we even have an explicit cleanup template notice) and we allow for articles to be imperfect as we edit them towards perfection. It is those that we are supposed to follow. So please follow them. That involves looking for, reading, and evaluating the sources. You haven't even addressed the source cited by Jack-A-Roe above, yet, let alone shown that you've checked to see whether any other sources exist, as deletion policy requires you to determine. Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete this non-article. As Looie says, this doesn't prejudice a possible later article based on actual references. Develop a referenced discussion of this "Interdimensional hypothesis" at Ufology or UFO religion, and split it into a standalone article after a substantial, well-referenced paragraph has been compiled. Don't turn every phrase or term into a standalone article, it fragments Wikipedia and degrades quality. --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a rationale for either merger or outright redirection, which can be performed by any editor (even one without an account) using just the edit button. An administrator using the delete button isn't required for that. Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plausibly there's a valid article here but this isn't it. Moreschi (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Fix immediately... Far too many people respond to an AfD by commenting that sources exist, but can't be bothered to actually fix the article. If sources exist, but no one cares enough about a topic to actually add them to an article, that says something about the topic's lack of notability right there. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. Editor behaviour only says things about editors — their biases, their lack of knowledge, or their unwillingness to write or to edit. Notability is not determined by editors, nor reflected by editors biases or subjective opinions inferred from their behaviour or otherwise. Notability is determined by the existence of sources of appropriate provenances and depths. You haven't addressed that at all in your rationale (except perhaps by including the implicit premise in your argument that sources do exist). Consider this: By also not fixing the article yourself in the way that you want it to be fixed, you are as much a part of the problem as the other editors you are decrying for not fixing the article. Remember ((sofixit)) and Wikipedia:Be bold. Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 16:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was previously closed as delete by MBisanz on 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC). This close was overturned and the discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 17 in light of improvements to the article during the discussion and relatively weak arguments. lifebaka++ 16:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- More sources would certainly be nice, but for now, it certainly appears to pass notability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that sources are available. The problem is that I don't know if we can describe them as reliable and significant 1 and 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though merge might be a better outcome. But it meets WP:N on its own. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is in-universe (ha!) trivia from the fringes of outer cloud cuckoo land. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing a policy-based reason for deletion there. A paper encyclopedia covers this. We aren't that, so why not cover it if guideline and policies are met? 02:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep the sources are enough to support the article. "fringes of cloud-cuckoo land" is a classic IDONTLIKEIT. Anyway, coverage by F&W is sufficient, by our basic rules ever since the start. An an afd request starting out by saying "the topic is moderately notable" is a self-contradiction. I agree with Uncle G, to delete you need to show that it is unsourceable, not merely presently unsourced. DGG (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad article content is a valid reason to delete... especially when it sucks as bad as this. There is nothing wrong with a red link. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Serious question: where is is it stated in policy or guidelines that bad article content is a valid reason to delete? I thought that wasn't the case. Hobit (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The very last criteria is "any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that's bending the sentence pretty far. Do you believe the interpretation that the sentence means that we can/should delete poorly written articles has consensous? Hobit (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but that is "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". Are you saying improving this article to the point it is acceptable is not "practical"? If so, why not? JulesH (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N - has not recieved significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is pretty ludicrous to suggest that Steven J. Dick is not independent of Vallee. Such a suggestion is more indicative of the fact that you have not looked at what sources exist, rather than of any problem with the article's subject. As such, any estimation by you of whether the notability criteria are satisfied cannot be taken to be based upon any actual scrutiny of sources on your part. Uncle G (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced and meets WP:NOTE. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability and verifiability established for a start, by the mention in Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia and the fact that The History Channel found it notable enough to include that F&W information in a documentary on UFOs. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC) [Note for closing admin: This is not intended as a duplicate !vote; the initial deletion was overturned at DRV to be re-listed - since this AfD was re-opened on the same page instead of started as a new AfD, I am re-affirming my "keep" comment from above for clarity. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Keep. More sources would certainly be nice, but this article can be fixed. - Ret.Prof (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:38, 25 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 under criteria WP:SPEEDY#A7, per concensus of established editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 16:57, January 22, 2009 (UTC)

Mastermind (Sparta)[edit]

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

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

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

I believe this article should be deleted, because I cannot find any evidence that it satisfies WP:N. I nominated this article for speedy delete, but the speedy delete notice was removed by an uninvolved editor. Terrakyte (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Terrakyte (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Terrakyte (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This person is really important in Sparta. I think that makes him notable enough. 86.146.241.58 (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC) — 86.141.241.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Speedy keep Agreed. This person is really notable. Melvinworks (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC) — Melvinworks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Speedy keep Melvinworks and 86 are right. This person is notable. With all these speedy keep votes, I think we should now close this discussion. What does everyone else think? Takemcdown (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC) — Takemcdown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Agree. Melvinworks (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, let's close. 86.146.241.58 (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The above user(s) aside, I see no indication that the subject meets any notability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This guy was a member of Sparta's senate, a Lieutenant, Diplomat, "Ghostbuster", Recruiter, and a member of the Spartan Propaganda Corp. He's also one of the hardest working members, and could be King of Sparta one day. How could he not be notable? ;( 86.146.241.58 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yeah, few people have such credentials. Melvinworks (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply If he's as notable as you claim, then finding some real world sources that demonstrate this would be a convincing argument. Just saying "he's notable", isn't very convincing. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Yeah, he's notable. If we don't include him, who's next? Hitler? Takemcdown (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Credentials noted establish notability. Referendem (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC) — Referendem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - all users !voting to keep have edited only this AfD and the article itself so they are likely to be puppets of one variety or the other -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not a puppet. Whatever happened to WP:Assume good faith, huh? This encyclopedia has gone way down! 86.146.241.58 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment On the subject of "whatever happened to AGF", let's please remember that using "speedy keep" at AfD itself usually "implies that the user thinks the nomination was in bad-faith". So let's all just stay calm. :) --DaveG12345 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no claim to real world notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything even vaguely approaching a RS for him. Feel free to move this to keep if anything is found. Hobit (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note — see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.146.241.58. MuZemike 20:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More likely meat puppets than sock puppets. Reso lute 01:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete So he's good at an online RPG? Doesn't meet WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:N, oh and can someone finish the laundry? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above WP:SPI case. MuZemike 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real world notability. No coverage in reliable sources. No Wikipedia article. Brag about your online exploits somewhere else. Reso lute 22:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) — nothing remotely reliable shows why this online personality may be remarkable in any way. MuZemike 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This is ridiculous! This person has no real world notability, fails WP:NOTABILITY, and is now using sockpuppets to flood this AfD! It is rather routine to have a gaming or online profile immediately speedily deleted if no real world, reliable sources are provided, as they are mostly vanity articles. Scapler (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for children's games. Send all involved to bed without supper. JuJube (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may be notable in this private universe, but not in the real world. JohnCD (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what JuJube says, and no socks in bed either. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability, should have been speedied. Based on the amount of socking may need to Salt, too. Edward321 (talk) 15:41, 22 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. kur ykh 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Cartoon DataBase[edit]

Non-notable website, tagged for sources and notability since August with no improvements. Reads a bit promotionally as well. Absolutely no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the web site has been listed on the Best Free Reference Web Sites list by the American Library Associsation [14], and has received coverage in mainstream press. [15] -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't follow the link to the ALA and the article I can see is short. But not a passing mention. So assuming the ALA thing is true (AGF and all) it meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google turns up coverage: [16]. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:07, 25 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 G4 Recreation of article which was only deleted via AfD earlier today. Content is different but article still fails policy for all the same reasons. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike grella[edit]

Delete nn footballer who has yet to sign for a professional team Mayalld (talk) 15:50, 21 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. Tone 22:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Cross[edit]

Delete nn author whose first book has yet to be published Mayalld (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources to establish notability. The references provided in the article may help with verifiability but not notability as they are in turn, (1) the authoer's web site, (2) a promotional post submitted by the author, (3) the author's agent's web site. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be pure promotion. Plastikspork (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unpublished author, no independent sources, fails WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see also Carrie Ryan from the same SPA, another unpublished author. JohnCD (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent sources for notability. Racepacket (talk) 12:40, 22 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 Newton, New Jersey#Education . MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Christian School[edit]

Delete wholly WP:POV article, clearly written by an editor with a WP:COI for a non-notable elementary school Mayalld (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is COI about the article, in your opinion, so that I may change it accordingly ? It needs to be documented that there is a different kind of school here, and I'd like it not to be "controversial". Onyx3821 (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. POV article about a non-notable school, written by an editor with a conflict of interest. Livna-Maor (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - to Newton, New Jersey#Education - I have already merged a brief mention. TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merger/Redirect As per TerriersFan's suggestion. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:23, 22 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pizza Head Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:NOTNEWS. Possibly worth merging to Walter Williams (comedian filmmaker) or Pizza Hut#Advertising (it currently has zero sentences and one half-parapraph in these articles respectively) but not independently notable advertising campaign, absent from news since 1994. Notability tag since Sep 2007. THF (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary. Also, news sources talked about it from July 1994 to December 1995[17] at least. So NEWS does not apply. -

Oh yeah, and the article is currently sourced. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are well-catalouged and the commercial series is a milestone for the Williams studio. You can't say that about alot of these commercial series articles. Nate • (chatter) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notability is gained, it cannot be lost. Plenty of sources on this subject, and I feel the notability tag since 2007 on the article does not belong. Will Taco Bell Chihuahua be nominated as well? Vodello (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. Tag should have been removed 2 years ago. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:59, 22 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. Snowball clause (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International UFO Congress[edit]

Not a notable organization. Fails WP:ORG. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Reliable sources from well-known publishing houses are available to establish the notability of the subject, Google Book search. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. J.Mundo's sources prove notability. I just added some online sources that could be used to flesh out the article. A lot of people participate in this, the largest UFO congress in the world, and the material presented gets widespread distribution and discussion in the UFO world. If Martians Go Home.com thinks the congress is notable, I have to agree. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has received a decent amount of attention from mainstream sources: [18], [19], [20], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 22:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the notability guideline with the above sources. Themfromspace (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the sources in GBooks, it is difficult to understand the nomination. DGG (talk) 03:59, 23 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Cryptozoology[edit]

Defunct organization who's existence is sourced to conference proceedings (generally not considered reliable enough). Notability not established per the WP:ORG guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note that the title of the article is incorrect. The organization was actually called the International Society of Cryptozoology. Here's a New York Times article about them, and there's more mainstream coverage out there. Zagalejo^^^ 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided above. Hobit (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep sources have been found. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was once a member and have a few of their journals, I'll add them as refs. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also, Zagalejo is right, the title should be changed to International Society of Cryptozoology. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An organization being defunct has nothing to do with notability, otherwise we should delete Confederate States of America and Zagalego has provided sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the leading society in its field,more than just notable. Pity it's defunct. They published an excellent journal, that is, IMO, a good reliable source on the subject. Perahps the nominator did not find thes ources because he searched under the wrong name. DGG (talk) 03:56, 23 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. Tone 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Fortean Organization[edit]

This article, obviously written as an WP:ADVERT, is about an organization which seems to me to fail WP:CORP. In particular, the assertion of notability seems to derive from a quote by John Keel. I think we can merge any relevant information to Fortean Society which is/was far more notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge parts of it somewhere I wouldn't call it a blatant advertisement, although it would need a good amount of cleanup. The organization has received some mainstream attention, mainly for FortFest [21], [22], so I think we should discuss them somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the sources that Zagalejo found. The article does need some cleaning up though. Themfromspace (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Sources are available to establish notability, Google book search--J.Mundo (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, adequate sources. DGG (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The sources are appropriate. This is not an advertisement; it is historical. To claim that it should be subsumed into other entries is tantamount to saying--let's incorporate the history of the Church of England into a history of Protestantism.208.59.173.4 (talk) 06:01, 25 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. Tone 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stuart Simmons[edit]

This is a non-notable author. His books are all simply compilations from the Fortean Times and haven't received much in the way of notability. See WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exists, but no evidence found of lasting or profound impact - WP:CREATIVE. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Plastikspork (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 11:14, 22 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. kur ykh 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Cristillo[edit]

Weak delete. WP:ACADEMIC, article consisting of wikilinked version of peacocky academic bio and unencyclopedic CV-like list of times quoted. Has occasionally been quoted, but not the subject of significant independent coverage. Handful of Google scholar cites, though many are apparently for his father. More notable people have been deleted; less notable people have been kept. I put it out there for discussion since this article hasn't been touched since the 9/07 tagging. Orphan. THF (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF, and he has a little press but it mostly seems to be trivial mentions that would not pass muster for WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the above editors, I am unable to find more evidence of notablity. --Crusio (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO in a clear-cut way, at the moment. Has a good chance of becoming notable in the future, but not quite there yet, in my opinion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:59, 22 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. Tone 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Shaw[edit]

Appears to be a WP:HOAX. If not a hoax, this individual certainly fails notability criteria for WP:BIO with only two self-published books. An internet search finds no results [23], [24], or even the reference [25]. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked by searching as the nominator did, and also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and could find no evidence of the existence of this person. Delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - No evidence of notability, nothing on Google. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to verify. Plastikspork (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Whataworld06 (talk) 21:04, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx (protocol)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No-consensus AFD in 2007, still no assertion of notability, and no material improvement in article since then. Unreferenced orphan article. THF (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability asserted. Pyrrhus16 14:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite It's no less notable than the TCP/IP protocol, though it definitely needs expanding and copyediting for tone and style. KaySL (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not about a protocol in the same sense as TCP/IP: this is an old, BBS era file transfer protocol. As such, it isn't an advertisement, or that much of a going concern any more: it's chiefly of historical interest. What counts as a reliable source for matters such as this ought to have some flexibility where the preserved mementos of BBS history are involved. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Flexivbility in RSs or not, this article has zero. A forgotten unimportant piece of software should not be kept for nostalgia's sake. The page is orphaned, and absolutely no-one will fix it, so is best to delete. Let a new article be made when and if anyone cares that this is gone and can find any sources.Yobmod (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The purpose of an encyclopedia is precisely to ensure historical information does not get forgotten. Granted, this software was hardly as notable as, say, FTP or HTTP, but in my opinion, it's notable enough to have at least a stub-class article. Cheers. KaySL (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KaySL.Simon Dodd (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The documentation is sufficiently RS for the description; but, as i rememebr this software, I'm surprised not to find some sort of 3rd party source to supplement it. DGG (talk) 04:28, 24 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 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation[edit]

Please do not delete this just because I have both created it and nominated it for deletion. I have done both because I am confused. This is thus a neutral nomination.

This is a National Day, and was proclaimed as such by Barack Obama yesterday, thus it is notable and verifiable. So I created the article (previously speedy deleted "no context"), and referenced it. Now I discover that such days are potentially pointless proclamations by incoming presidents (see article talk page), so I can't decide with any precision if this is worth including here as an article. But the community can, hence the nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability and verifiability is all what is required for an article to stay. Calling it 'pointless' is POV. –Capricorn42 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no difficulty with that. I am looking simply at the other proclaimed days of "something" proclaimed by other presidents, some of which fall in the same date. They, too, are notable, verifiable and somehow devoid of anything but name, and are absent from here. You make a persuasive argument for their creation as articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or an argument to delete this one :-). Pointless would equate to non-notable in this case. Sure it is verifiable, but there si nothing to say apart from Obama proclaiming it. Per WP:Notnews, an extremely small blip in news coverage does not make something notable.

Delete Perhaps "pointless" is point-of-view, since this type of proclamation is always going to sound new, perhaps even inspirational to someone who hasn't noticed one before. Suffice to say that symbolic gestures have never been unusual, nor unexpected, from persons assuming a political office just about anywhere. In November, President Obama will officially proclaim the fourth Thursday to be "a national day of Thanksgiving", just as his predecessors have. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to be fair I suspect Thanksgiving may well be worth keeping here! Possibly that proclamation has more... clout! I think you can see why I both created it and nominated it, really. If we keep it then it is a decent article, albeit small, if not then no tears will be shed, provided the consensus gets it right. What we must not do is allow the discussion to turn from here where it is reasoned and measured into a political rant pro or con, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought he had said this should be a national day of blah blah. Not this is from now on the official National day of blah! Like having a national day of mourning when a tragedy happens - that is not the same as National Rememberence Day. It's a one off soundbite, that afflicted one day. The day is already over, and it is not notable anymore.Yobmod (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment despite being unsure of the validity of this article I don't think I can accept your argument here. From where I am in the UK this looks like "an official proclamation", not a simple sound bite. You also cannot argue that a day is not notable because it has passed. All notable days in history are in the past. Possibly the real question is "Will this be a day known as this in the future?" and here the proclamation appears to say "yes" and my instinct, which is not known for verifying things, says "no". (after edit conflict) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Bill Clinton proclaimed 1/20/1993 as "National Day of Fellowship and Hope". George W. Bush proclaimed 1/21/2001 as "National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving"; George H.W. Bush proclaimed the same on 1/22/1989. None of these are memorable or at all notable. This one is just more recent.Yobmod (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Barring anyone working up the article with adequete sourcing to show notability beyond being just one action he took. Every Presidential action isn't inherently notable, perhaps. Please leave a cross-post to my talk page if you've expanded the sourcing and I miss this on watchlist. rootology (C)(T) 16:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. The coverage just keeps growing and growing it appears, making this notable. In hindsight I think the fact it was his first official act makes it notable also. rootology (C)(T) 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment There may be an argument for the creation of an article which is a referenced list of "Days given names by incoming presidents as one of their first actions" and placing all such into it as a record of Premature Proclamation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - things like this are done all the time. Congress names dozens of days a year. Non-notable really. Grsz ¹¹ 17:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to inauguration article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Switching to keep. Merge discussion can take place on article talk page. Notable event and inauguration. This is a notable part of it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I pointed out on the talk page that new presidents are making a habit of declaring one of their first days in office a "National Day of (...)". The exact phrasing varies. It seems to me that it's just a way for a president to do something official right off the bat. It's not notable, unless you plan to make articles for every presidential "National Day of (...)" proclamation. Habfan29 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [26]. 160 news articles discuss this. One event? Maybe, but I don't think so. That said, a merger of all these "days" into one article is probably the right editorial call. But it meets the requirements for a stand-alone article. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This goes beyond one event. I find it rather interesting that we are discussing the notability of the first official act of President Obama. And by the way, other stuff doesn't exist is not a valid argument for deletion.--J.Mundo (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say that the first major official act of one of the most powerful people on earth definitely warrants an article. Plenty of good sources too it seems. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note that there appear to be (at least) two additional "keep !votes" at Talk:National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation which should probably be considered when closing Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The proclamation is, at most, a footnote to the inauguration. There are not 160 articles that "discuss" this; there are 160 articles that mention it, many only in the context of quoting the entire inaugural address. I didn't sit and read every article, but I did look at half a dozen of them; none discussed the NDRR in any greater depth, or described it in words not taken directly from the proclamation itself. There is no information and nothing to say about the NDRR, except that it exists. The relevant part of the proclamation can go in any of several articles about Obama and his administration, and we can certainly think about creating an article to list all of the days declared in this vein by incoming presidents. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the more I look at this the more I feel we ought to create the article which is a fully referenced list of Days named by US Presidential Proclamation, and to turn this article into a redirect to it, adding the other days to it. While a day so proclaimed's status may be common knowledge to US citizens it is by no means obvious to many of the rest of us. The day is definitely notable and verifiable, but seems to me not to warrant an article in its own right. I'm simply wary of creating it while we have this article here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the first (speedily deleted) article, thinking initially that it was a recurring holiday (not having read it properly, I suppose), but then found out about the similar past presidential days. I hadn't known about the other days, and with an article I might have known. Adam ^Rock 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but make into an article about the inaugural tradition of declaring such days, or merge with United States presidential inauguration. --bd_ (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if only because we'll probably make it again because it's a National Day, but if this is a regular thing then I'm with Tim Trent and Bdonlan on making it a list article. --Applemask (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion on keeping or deleting this article, but I would be interested to see what the AfD outcome would be for any similar article created for such a soundbite from an incoming leader in, say, Brazil or Bangladesh. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You raise an interesting point. It ought to have a similar depth of discussion and breadth of opinion. One can but hope. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreeing with Mandsford, the article seems pointless, does not seem long enough to be an article based on the notion that it is already mentioned in the Presidency of Barack Obama, and is no more than a sentence and a quote. Resetti 4 Prez (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obama himself is notable. The inauguration was notable. Gilded rhetoric is not.The Sartorialist (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant. -Branddobbe (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There probably ought to be a page to house all of those "my-first-act-as-President" (or "greetings from your new leader") proclamations that get made, with a look at what the first George W. did on April 30, 1789. A few months from now, we'll see this article from a different perspective, and I imagine that it will have the same lack of importance as the similar proclamations that User:Yobmod identified. Mandsford (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yobmod. Spiesr (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect to the inauguration page per Yobmod. Epson291 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge into Inauguration Day. I have modified that article with a few sentences which I think convey the essence of this article.[27] "Pointlessness" of the day is not important, but the fact that this article can't really be expanded much, or separated from discussion of the inauguration, demands a merge. Mike Serfas (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. Does not provide significant information independent of other articles. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration. Unlike the invitation article, this doesn't look there's any more to it than an intro sentence and the content of the declaration itself, which should be on Wikisource. Joshdboz (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is silly, we don't have National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving or National Day of Fellowship and Hope, either, so where's the difference? --Conti|✉ 14:10, 25 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Draper[edit]

Substanceless WP:BIO. Tagged since 9/07 w/o improvement. Article suffers from WP:PUFF. Also nominating related To W.H., where the references are just about entirely WP:SYN. THF (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - per nom, not that notable. Pyrrhus16 14:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been linked on the WikiProject Shakespeare talk page. Xover (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stuart Draper as just notable enough. Have expanded and sourced the article to show notability as a playwright and as an actor. There's more out there. Time for expansion... not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To W.H. as that article has now been expanded and sourced to show individual notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To W.H. as it is the subject of multiple notable publications. ~~I do not have an opinion on Draper yet.~~ In light of the article's recent expansion that keep should also count for Draper. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: We have two related but different articles here, and both have been markedly expanded, improved, and sourced since being nominated. That editors might opine differently about each one could lead to confusions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to both. Mr. Schmidt has done a nice job of referencing the articles and I think they now pass the notability bar and clearly demonstrate enough substantial coverage from independent sources to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:06, 23 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/merge. I'm unsure as to the notability of Kobolds, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt (awards etc), however the game is definitely not notable enough to warrant specific articles on its publisher and game system. I've started the merge from 9th to Kobolds, the rest is on the talk page. Maybe a small paragraph about the publisher? I don't think any of the content from BEER is needed, but if you disagree, I can always pull it out for you. yandman 08:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9th Level Games[edit]

WP:BUSINESS. 4 employees, no Google News hits, no RS material in first 30 Ghits or in two footnotes. Tagged since 9/07 w/o material improvement. Also nominating Kobolds Ate My Baby and BEER Engine game system. THF (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Merge to a single article. "GHits" are not a qualifier for deletion per WP:GHITS and many notable companies in the RPG business have 4 employees or less (Eden has 3, GoO had 2, Palladium effectively has 1). Currently we have only a small number of people dealling with all the game articles, so the rationalle here is not to delete, but rather to improve. Web Warlock (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. WP:BUSINESS does not apply to Kobolds Ate My Baby or BEER Engine game system. Web Warlock (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep but Merge as per Webwarlock. Edward321 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge all/Keep~~ per WW. There are a large number of moderate sources [28] for example. As a relative expert I can certainly say these guys are notable and I'm sure they've won ENies or some other awards. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge BEER engine into 9th level, Keep Kobolds as it now meets WP:N and is well-written to boot. Nice job WW. Hobit (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot. The total of all the reliable independent sources for all these articles is insufficient to support any article. I'm afraid that being sure they must have been recognised somewhere doesn't cut it after a year and a half of being flagged for fixing up. Sources now, please, or the content can go until we have sources. Wikipedia:Delete the junk describes why. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there seems to be a list of awards and review here[29] and that was a 30-second search. Web Warlock (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added 3 refs. Need to go home to get the details on another 2 and then a search for 2 more. All independent 3rd party publications. Web Warlock (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE. the articles were added to the Kobolds Ate My Baby! article. Could not find the two print articles at home, still on a search for the other two. I still support the merge of all of these into the main Kobolds article. Web Warlock (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kobolds Ate My Baby!. Numerous awards are listed, and it is a fairly important game in RPG culture. Keep 9th Level Games. Since they published Kobolds, one would assume that the awards were given to them, although the article needs improvement. Deletion should be a last resort; I think that that article could be cleaned up. Neutral on BEER Engine game system; I doubt that there will be many reliable references about the system, but I could be wrong. Maybe merge it into the Kobolds article? Additionally, Wikipedia is not on a timeline; the length of time that cleanup has been needed is no reason for deletion. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:31, 23 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. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 20:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. James Keith Parsonage[edit]

Nice little old house near Plymouth, Massachusetts, preserved by a local historical society. While sites on the National Register of Historic Places are notable, due to the vast amount of coverage given to any such site, this definitely isn't NRHP, and it doesn't have the sources to make it notable otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge. Probably similar to the friaries of Europe, has "ecological" notability for articles on urbanism. Ottre 17:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused: are you saying that it has something to do with ecology? At any rate, not all parsonages are notable: there's nothing to prevent any church with money from buying or building one. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember, sorry. Ottre 20:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep According to this site [30], the structure is called the Rev. James Keith House. It was built in 1662 and it played a part in King Philip's War, according to pages 18-19 of this PDF: [31]. I think we should try to rewrite the article. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does seem to be of historic value and per the sources cited by Pastor Theo. --Oakshade (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No complaints about non-NRHP historic buildings that have good sources — withdraw and someone who remembers how to close these things please close it. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 22 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. kur ykh 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Thomas Paget[edit]

WP:ONEEVENT; no independent notability. Appears to be largely WP:OR and WP:SYN. Possible merge with Bantam (military), if there's independently useful content here. Tagged since 9/07 w/o improvement. THF (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why does this person have an article? He doesn't seem more notable than any of the other many under-age soldiers in WW1. He's not mentioned on any of the references, except 3 of them, which are simply namechecks on memorial/roll of honour sites. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is basically unsourced original research and doesn't meet WP:BIO. I suspect that this is someone's family history research. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the creator's edit history certainly seems to indicate this. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There were potentially hundreds of boy soldiers during the First World War, and this one doesn't appear notable enough to warrant an article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:27, 22 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 Langtoft, Lincolnshire#Education. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Langtoft Primary School[edit]

Nothing encyclopedic, no 3d-party references, no assertion of notability, tagged since 9/07 w/o improvement. Possible merge to Lincolnshire, but there really isn't any content. THF (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Langtoft, Lincolnshire#Education. I have already merged the limited encyclopaedic information. TerriersFan (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, as suggested by TerriersFan. Article does not assert the school's notability as a topic separate from the village, but information about the school can enrich the article about the village. I note that the article does cite an offline third-party reference, namely LANGTOFT A Portrait of South Lincolnshire Village, by Jean Thomas and Diana Branch. There may be more information that could be added to the village article (in addition to what TerriersFan added there). --Orlady (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Langtoft, Lincolnshire#Education, reducing the text to one or two paragraphs, instead of the present bullet point list. Delete list of heads. TerriersFan's present merged text is in my view raterh too brief. WP does not usually have articles on primary schools, but material on them can conveniently be included in village articles. The local hisotry book should certainly be cited in the distination article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 22 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. kur ykh 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kretchmer[edit]

WP:BIO; no third-party references; blanked by SPA creator, but recreated. Tagged since 9/07 w/o improvement. Photo of painting appears to violate copyright of painting. No Google News references. Ghits are to commercial sites selling one painting or Wiki mirrors. Only Google Books references are to two he authored. No Google Scholar references. THF (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient secondary sources on the subject to pass wikipedia's inclusion requirements per WP:N. Only passing mentions by BBC,[32] and a local/regional paper.[33] A search of newsuk.co.uk for 1991-2009 yields only a letter by Kretchner to The Times on 17 August 2001. Ty 14:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 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. kur ykh 00:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Krejčí[edit]

Flunks WP:ATHLETE. Unreferenced article by SPA. THF (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article claims the player played on a Dukla Prague team that won two national championships, but this is unreferenced and doesn't actually specify if this was for the club's first team (Dukla did win the Czechoslovakian League 5 times in 6 years in the 1960s, when this player would theoretically have been active) or if he only played at youth level. User:Hedva's only other contributions were to create an article (now long since speedy'ed) that read: "Ashley Elizabeth Hedvika Krejci. April 2 - present. Daughter of soccer legend Karel Jaromir Krejci and of African-American and Czech descent. Her father played for Dukla Praha soccer team as a shooter. She enjoyed very close relationshop with her father and often refers to him as her "best-friend."" so there appears to be WP:COI here too.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the only thing I have found about this person is this (either scroll down to the 17th entry or use the search function of your browser looking for "Karel"). It is not much of a help to ressolve the matter, though, as it only proves that this person really existed and was not made up by someone. A look at the history section (in Czech) of the current Dukla homepage was not very enlightening as well. He might have been a member of the team, but probably not as a regular player of the starting squad.

On another note, there is a former player and current coach with the very same name. This man was born in 1968 and is currently (according to the German wiki article) managing Viktoria Plzen. If there is not enough evidence to keep the current article, maybe it could be "transformed" to represent the current coach? --Soccer-holic (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If he did indeed play for Dukla then he doesn't have to have been "a regular player of the starting squad", merely having played at a professional level would suffice. So we would need to ascertain if he had ever done so.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This website has Czechoslovak match reports going back to the 1970/71 season, and no mention of him there. As mentioned above he would have played in the 1960s, and unfortunately, I'm not aware of a site that has information from that time period. Jogurney (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RSSSF has match lineups for all Dukla Prague European matches. Krejčí is not listed, though this does not rule out domestic appearances. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified or unverifiable. --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dweller. Jogurney (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stay hand pending research: unfortunately the equivalent page to this on cs.wikipedia.org is almost entirely abandoned. But a reasonable claim for notability has been made, and if it is the intention of this project to be complete, avoiding a bias towards recentism and the anglophone world, I think we should be more tolerant of delay in gaining info which is more difficult to access. Having said that, my ability to research the issue is severely language constrained. I know one Gillingham fan who lived in Prague and follows Dukla: I'll see if he might know of possible sources. Kevin McE (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found 4 people on cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedie_diskuse:WikiProjekt_Fotbal (even I can translate that) who claim to speak English, and have requested on their usertalk pages that they have a look here. Kevin McE (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only player called "Karel Krejčí" who has ever played in Czech or Czechoslovak leagues was active during 90's. Dukla have never had a league player called "Krejčí". This person is probably completely made up by the author of the article. For references, see Atlas českého fotbalu (ISBN 80-901703-3-9 Parameter error in ((ISBN)): checksum) or Encyklopedie našeho fotbalu (ISBN 80-85983-22-2). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honza Záruba (talk • contribs) 10:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per research by Honza Zaruba. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:38, 25 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.

T-Shyne[edit]

The result was speedy delete. hmwith τ 02:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly non-notable musician. Speedy request removed by creator. tomasz. 12:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 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 G3d - hoax. Non-admin closure. Ouro (blah blah) 18:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Wiliams[edit]

This is a hoax. The geography is shaky: "the Danish side Brondby bought him for 11 $ million and he went to Finland" and later he had a "transfer to American side Toronto." But there is no such player in the Toronto FC roster. (Note: this is not Jason Williams (soccer) who is from Bermuda). Delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "He played in the Championship with the Black Cats for one season, 06-07, and played 39 games and scored 45 goals" - oh no he didn't, no such player anywhere near Sunderland, and their top scorer that season amassed 13 goals - hoax.--DaveG12345 (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite obvious hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax --Dweller (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax -- Alexf^(talk) 13:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant hoax. After all, Chicago Fire have not had a youth system for 10yr olds at that time, had they? --Soccer-holic (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And unless his name is secretly Landon Donovan, he certainly wasn't the top scorer for the MLS. Mandsford (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax per nom. Giant Snowman 17:22, 21 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 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F violin[edit]

No sources cited, and does not appear to be notable —Snigbrook 12:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced. Amounts to a description of a non-standard tuning of an existing instrument, the violin, and thus not notable. tomasz. 12:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be someone making a point about a teacher's methods? Search of the "reference" website in the article gives one hit for "violin", and nothing specific about "f violin". --DaveG12345 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 16:58, 21 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 00:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New computer[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. DFS454 (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTHOWTO, also unsourced, possibly original research. —Snigbrook 12:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -per above, not a how-to. –Capricorn42 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -per the above, though if the article creator is serious, he/she can always take this to WikiBooks, and expand upon it there. KaySL (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A how to guide. Schuym1 (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although yes, if it were more detailed, it might belong at WikiBooks. Anaxial (talk) 20:05, 24 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 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereal Pandemonium[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. No sources given at all. It's been orphaned since June. It is horribly written which, given that standpoint, if the band were notable after all, it would be best to delete this and start over. But, as it stands, this band is not notable. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per James Burns. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 04:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason this article was missing the AfD tag. It's now been added. JamesBurns (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:36, 21 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 02:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Tracy[edit]

Has not played in a professional match, therefore does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and insufficient claims for any other form of notability. Kevin McE (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However recreate if he makes a game for AaB. Govvy (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per Govvy's comments and rationale. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: I thought WP:Twinkle did all that sort of thing. Kevin McE (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that hiccup in Twinkle sometimes, too. --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until he's done something that makes him notable. --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he looked notable but wasn't. Empire3131 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he will definitely play matches in Aalborg. Probably at the reserves team in the start, but I'm pretty sure, he will advance to the first team. --AaB-ern (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Saying he WILL play matches for Aalborg is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. He might break his leg in pre-season and never play a game. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:52, 25 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 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Villanueva[edit]

Not even close to notable. Highest level of "professional" play is short-level, which is not a real professional swimmer level as one cannot make a career out of playing at such a low level competition. Ergo, fails WP:N and WP:V.Mmaasia (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability test at WP:Athlete, non notable subject.Mmaasia (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:UNSOURCED and WP:GNG.空手道 (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.空手道 (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.空手道 (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.空手道 (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable player. No substantial coverage other than in local paper. Pinoynewbreed (talk) 08:48, 22 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 Real-life superhero. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Xtreme[edit]

Non-notable individual. No wide coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Grsz ¹¹ 19:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because sources are cited, and because the nominator couldn't be bothered to use complete sentences. --Rividian (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good reason. </sarcasm>. Grsz ¹¹ 13:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well when you go through someone's edits looking for things you can do to upset them, you're going to get some sarcasm back. --Rividian (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~* Merge to Real-life superhero. According to The Times, London, Mr. Xtreme is part of a notable phenomenon. — Athaenara ✉ 14:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Striking* my previous view as per subsequent discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 14:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Trivial mention per WP:GNG. Perhaps enough to merit mention in an article titled Amateur crimefighters or Masked vigilante. Grsz ¹¹ 18:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent coverage in reliable sources; namechecks are not enough. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Real-life superhero A lot of references merely mention him, but the second reference means he's been covered indepth by at least one reliable source which means it's verifiable and a good merge candidate. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse merge is nom. Grsz ¹¹ 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Real-life superhero per MgM.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:10, 26 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 02:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiagames Ghajini Mobile[edit]

This article seems to be used for advertising for the game. It does not meet the criteria for inclusion. It also has a plethora of non-free content without source info and rationales. Non-free content is to be used minimally. DFS454 (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mobile game is non-notable. Article is written pretty much like an advert too -"Come and enjoy these fun filled games based on Ghajini movie..."–Capricorn42 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) as spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam and spam. MuZemike 14:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lol at the above speedy :-)--DFS454 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, reads like an advertisement. JamesBurns (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable game, text is also written on Ghajini (2008 film)
Keep (assuming I'm not confusing multiple versions of the game on different platforms) - MyPopcorn.com, Televisionpoint.com, Businessofcinema.com, The Hindu, glamsham.com. SharkD (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I don't know about the others, but I believe that this is a blatant attempt at advertising. The user has placed six redlink categories on the bottom. Then we got this quote:

Come and enjoy these fun filled games based on Ghajini movie, a whole bunch of games back to back. Arcade, time attack, action … the game covers numerous genres and features many characters from the movie.

This also looks like it was copy-and-pasted from somewhere; unfortunately, I cannot find any copyrighted material of this anywhere. Notable or not, the article requires a fundamental rewrite to drop the advertising and possible copyvio tone. MuZemike 07:54, 25 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 02:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darian_Shirazi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable person. Was previously removed due to non-notability at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darian_Shirazi. Shirazi has not become significantly more notable since that deletion 2 years ago. XXaznjwangXx (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to have got any more notable since the last deletion. Maybe he'll deserve a page one day, but not today. Alberon (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks notability. Pyrrhus16 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:08, 23 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 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anu Kalra[edit]

Delete. Its painfully obvious that this entertainer fails all the relevant notability guidelines, but the prod system just isn't working like it should so I'm bringing it here to seal the deal. JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

endorse prod--err, I mean delete. The subject fails the general and specific notability guidelines. Is this eligible for CSD A1? Themfromspace (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks notability. Pyrrhus16 14:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SKY-MAP.ORG[edit]

Queried speedy delete db-spam. It has many incoming links and has been here since 14:22, 16 May 2007 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has multiple references from, among other things, a new scientist article and you want it deleted? I'm not surprised the CSD was queried; it doesn't fall under DB-SPAM either. Spam would be if it was made entirely of advertising, POVy corporatespeak; this article doesn't fall under any of those things. Keep and recommend self-closure.Ironholds (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else speedy-delete-tagged it. I queried the tagging. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you queried the tagging because you thought it should be kept or because you thought it should be deleted but wasn't a speedy candidate? Ironholds (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I queried the tagging because I thought it should be kept. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then why take it to AfD? Ironholds (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the general notability guidelines as well as WP:WEB point 1: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Wikipedia exists to provide encyclopedic coverage about the subject, not to sell or popularize the subject. Also note the conflict of interest in the article's creation (although the author is to be commended for his good-faith disclosure of it). Themfromspace (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it has been published by independent sources. See this and this; I would have thought an article by a New Scientist writer particularly would be considered notable. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs improvement (the "how-to" section should probably be removed) but otherwise seems a valid article topic.--DaveG12345 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related Comment - But I'm a bit surprised that screenshots (or "cut-outs") using this tool apparently automatically become free images owned by the user who cut them out, per this assertion attached to one of the article's gallery images[34] - can that possibly be true? Contrast the "copyright notice"[35] attached to this one[36] - here the uploader again asserts ownership of copyright of the image, but the linked copyright notice from Wikisky indicates such images are available for non-commercial use, assuming proper acknowledgement (and presumably copyright remaining with Wikisky)... But I was under the impression that WP didn't qualify as "non-commercial" in this sense? The relevant Wikisky page[37] currently asserts this fact no less. So I'm a bit concerned there are possible copyvios/misappropriations going on with these images (albeit in good faith). I am no expert on any of this though, and could very easily be completely mistaken, so I do no more than point this out here as a comment for others to perhaps pick up/clarify. --DaveG12345 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's open question related to proper license tagging of DSS2 images. I'm not a lawyer to properly address the issue. I do not recommend to use DSS2 or SDSS snapshots from WikiSky until the license issue fully resolved. On other hand WikiSky has many images from other sources with true public domain licenses, i.e. Hubble images, GALEX survey and other NASA images. Some images are available on WikiSky exclusively, like Hubble's globular clusters color images collection. friendlystar (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the copyright status of the images -- the site is notable, as shown by the sources. BTW, the copyright question is not whether Wikipedia is a non-commercial site. Its whether the images are licensed for free use or only for "free" non-commercial use, because if its the 2nd, they don't qualify for our license and cannot be used here except in the limited way for fair use pof copyright material.DGG (talk) 04:26, 23 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 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McCain Girls[edit]

Delete nn group, per WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP1E. These girls may warrant a mention at McCain's article, but their limited WP:RS coverage is only in the context of a single story. Mayalld (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, good heavens no. JBsupreme (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable enough for it's own article. JamesBurns (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and comments. Pyrrhus16 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found one source with a brief mention http://www.metroactive.com/metro/12.31.08/music-0853.html and another indicating it was a parody by 23/6 of campaign songs, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/business/media/14girls.html?fta=y but does not appear notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:26, 21 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.

Classicard[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author's request. MASEM 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game does not appear to be notable. Is not a Xbox Live Arcade game, it's a community-released game. Article only seems to serve as advertisement for game. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please go ahead and delete this page. It was mistake to add it as there was several rules I was unaware of when I created it. I basically just noticed the Hearts (Windows) page and thought why not add one for our game as well no harm intended. But there is clearly a conflict of interest. I tried to manually remove the page but that was reverted. Unarmed1000 (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G7) per author's request. Tagging as such right now. MuZemike 14:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:06, 21 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. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deviant sexual intercourse[edit]

This article has remained unreferenced since flagged in November 2008, and, though I have not checked every revision, appears to have had no references since its creation. It thus appears to be interesting, but also more of an essay or a personal opinion than a cited, notable and verifiable article. I prodded the article. The prod was reverted with no edit summary, so I am bringing it here for a consensus to be built. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it is a term used in US criminal codes, not an 'essay'. Unreferenced yes, but a simple google search would have found this and this on the first page alone. It needs to be cleaned up and referenced yes, but deletion? No. Ironholds (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now cleaned it up and referenced it. Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case it behoves me to withdraw the nomination and ask someone to consider a speedy keep on that basis. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:17, 21 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.

Flair Games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author's request. MASEM 15:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video game development company, with single non-notable product. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please go ahead and delete this page. It was mistake to add it as there was several rules I was unaware of when I created it. I basically just noticed the Silver Creek Entertainment page and thought why not add one for our company as well no harm intended. But there is clearly a conflict of interest. I tried to manually remove the page but that was reverted. Unarmed1000 (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G7) per author's request. Tagging as such right now. MuZemike 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:06, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryder Scott[edit]

questionable notability, possible vanity page, no secondary sources, the references are to primary sources only, per WP:CORP and WP:PSTS. Aurush kazemini^talk 06:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable company with third party coverage; see [38] for summary and a list of recent news articles in Business Week. JulesH (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as per JulesH, this is a company often briefly mentioned in oil company press releases and I suspect a lot of people might wonder what it does exactly. And I'm not sure what you think a primary source is, Aurush, but everything cited is third party other than the Ryder Scott home page. Suggest this is a frivolous AFD, as with many of your other nominations. TastyCakes (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE There may be third-party coverage, but it's not referenced in the article. From what I see, the references come from primary sources. The references which are there now include brief mention in an SEC filing document another mention in "published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments," and conference notes. All of these appear to fall into what Wikipedia considers to be primary sources. From WP:PSTS: "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." SmashTheState (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you go to the rigzone archives and search for Ryder Scott you'll find 50 articles mentioning the company, mostly where their reserve evaluations are used (it apparently cuts off after the 50 most recent). As I say in the article's talk page, Ryder Scott is a company that is frequently behind the scenes in oil industry dealings and are usually mentioned in the press only during press releases for their various clients. TastyCakes (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, we're aware what primary sources are thank you very much SmashTheState. As JulesH has shown, there is third party coverage. That it isn't referenced in the article yet is grounds for improvement, not deletion. the wub "?!" 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've put the reference from JulesH in the article. TastyCakes (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Unencyclopedic. It looks more like a vanity page set up by someone inside the company.Strummingbabe (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I think there's still reason to believe Strummingbabe is a sock puppet of Aurush, the nominator. TastyCakes (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's clear that you think that, that's why you're running around stalking me and others making that accusation — sorry, but i don't even know the douche

to the subject at hand: i nominated this because it is unencyclopedic and hasn't shown itself to be notable Aurush kazemini^talk 03:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He just happens to create an account and jump right into the same AFD topics you're into (90s TV show characters and various things I edit), more often than not shows up at the same AFD articles and votes as you do and has a user page that looks like a randomly muddled up version of your own? If you really don't know him and it's stalkers you're worried about, I think he's the one you should be looking at. TastyCakes (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*shrugs* i've probably found pages to edit through his history, etc. you've shown up on pages i edited where he didn't. should i assume you're him? or maybe you're just curious about my public edit history? Aurush kazemini^talk 06:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, third-party RS meeting WP:GNG have been provided in this discussion, AFD is not cleanup :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:17, 24 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 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Betty film[edit]

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable film with non-notable cast. Pyrrhus16 15:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found to verify notability. According to the official website the film isn't even released yet. It even doesn't have an IMDb entry. ^LeaveSleaves 12:27, 24 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.

PJK Charts[edit]

The result was speedy delete per WP:HOAX and comments. hmwith τ 02:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really need to say much about it, just read the article. I did try proding the article but that was removed. If this isn't completely made up, the chart will be one of those obscure fake web sites like the United World Chart fiasco. — Realist² 06:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.... Yeah, a random chart page with no external links or anything about the chart itself? And with no Google hits? Boo. (Interestingly, both registered editors have 123456789 in their usernames, and both only edited this article and other song articles to put this chart in them.) SKS2K6 (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ..... unitedly delete. Doesnot suggest any reference or anything at all. completely agree with User:SKS2K6. "Legolas" (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. - eo (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really not understanding this whole new obsession with fake chart creation all of the sudden. Epic fail on sources and complete WP:BOLLOCKS. Nate • (chatter) 18:42, 21 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 00:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Tree (film)[edit]

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Films starring major stars are inherently notable. AnyPerson (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No they aren't. Try checking WP:NF. TJ Spyke 06:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try evidence of notability point 2 in that page: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Directorial debuts as suggested below are a major part of someone's career. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Is it notable for being Sally Field's directorial debut? Do these sources count as notable coverage? - [39], [40] AnyPerson (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written, unsourced, not indications of notability. TJ Spyke 06:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, as per User:AnyPerson. Appears incredibly sloppy, but notable. Suggest flag for rescue, if it's that important. Aurush kazemini^talk 06:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AnyPerson found significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per AnyPerson's sources, notability is asserted through coverage in said sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per guideline as explained by Mgm and sources as found by AnyPerson. With respects to TJSpyke, and since notability has been shown, being poorly written or unsourced is a reason for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: and since I last visited this AfD, I took it upon myself to straighten out the article, cleaning it up per film MOS and sourcing it being Sally Fields' television film directorial debut. It has had international release in multiple languages and had been released on VHS back in 2001. Its now a definite keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Weak Delete Not notable. The Rolling Camel (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now sourced, notable for directoral debut, international release. Skier Dude (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – some good sources, major movie. TheAE talk/sign 07:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per above. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:28, 24 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 00:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Gay Musical[edit]

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete solely because the film isn't out yet so fails CRYSTAL, not due to lack of notability. AnyPerson (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per User:AnyPerson Aurush kazemini^talk 06:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurush kazemini (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete Not sufficient information to support a standalone article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors please note that the article is going through expansion and sourcing to meet current concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the film is most definitely not WP:CRYSTAL and the improved article NOW tickles past WP:NFF... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to now meet WP:N in the article itself. No reason for valid reason for deletion left. Hobit (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to self: Note WP:CRYSTAL says: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This looks to fit the bill. 23:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The producers here have a track record in the LGBT film fest circuit so even more sources will be forthcoming, as is article squeaks by and is NPOV written. -- Banjeboi 00:11, 22 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 19th Step[edit]

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article states it's Disney's first Tamil film which, based on a cursory glance at Google can be confirmed. This makes the film's production itself notable. -

Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The film was supposed to start in 2007 but got delayed due to lack of dates from the lead actors. Now everything has been sorted out and the movie will start being canned from august as mentioned in the article. When Walt Disney has decided to produce a movie, little will they drop the idea. the project is still on and therefore this article should not be deleted. Following is a reference to the link of BharatBala Productions that is actually creating the film. It is a reliable film house and i therefore find no reason why this article should be deleted.reference provided--Coolmukund (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I changed the above <ref> to a [] since it was screwing up both the overview and breaking apart this AfD. Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being Disney's FIRST Tamil film. Wiki and WP:NFF love "firsts" from notable companies doing notable things. Its a keeper. Send out for expansion and cleaning. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rewrite - this topic is notable and hence needs to be a part of wiki ....removing stuffs isnt an alternate to bring a topic to reality .... u may include tht the movie may or mayn't have begun ....--93.157.184.153 (talk) 14:38, 24 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 Speedily Deleted as CSD G7 (author request) Kylu (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up in the Air (film)[edit]

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the advice of User:Erik I archived the article to my userspace, blanked the page, and added ((db-author)) to the article. When I can confirm that filming has stared, I will let User:Erik and Girolamo Savonarola know prior to moving the article into mainspace. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as delete once the author-deletion request is processed; article is userfied and can be recreated when we can verify that filming has begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:51, 21 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 00:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Action Figure Displays[edit]

Delete smells like WP:ADVERT and nothing indicates that this product is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed, definite vanity page or ad Aurush kazemini^talk 06:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if POV issues (ads and vanity) were cleaned up, the company simply doesn't appear noteworthy in any way. TastyCakes (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it looked notable but wasn't. Empire3131 (talk) 20:49, 22 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 The Rose of Versailles. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Rose de Versailles[edit]

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that production has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Rose of Versailles - will probably never really deserve a split. Doceirias (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above IF that film receive enough coverage after its release them it should be re-evaluated. --KrebMarkt 14:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFF, so merge to a section of the article about the source being adapted, The Rose of Versailles, at least for now. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:07, 21 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 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RainStorm[edit]

No evidence of notability is cited. The only reference is the web page on the product. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability asserted. Pyrrhus16 15:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 16:55, 21 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 Criticism of Microsoft Windows. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Rot[edit]

Is this a hoax? Otherwise, what notability does it show? I don't see any. TheAE talk/sign 05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a hoax. There are plenty of people who beleive in Windows Rot. This article doesn't claim it exists for sure, just defines the words and the theories that go along with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portew (talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but source. See [41]. AnyPerson (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but needs source and possibly runs afoul of Wikipedia:Original Research, possibly merge with Criticism of Microsoft Windows, a woefully barren article. Aurush kazemini^talk 06:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurush kazemini (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete (but without prejudice to the later creation of a sourced article created on the same topic): pure WP:OR. This is most probably a real phenomenon, and may be covered in reliable sources somewhere, but if an up-to-scratch article is ever written on it, it will need to be written from scratch. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My understanding is that "Windows Rot" is explained mostly by the accumulation of gunk in the Windows Registry, and possibly also by disk fragmentation. The subject should be covered, but we already have those articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current article is purely original research. Looking over the Google news links provided by AnyPerson, I fail to find multiple, third-party, reliable sources; most are blogs or forums, others mention the term in passing, or are about windows. The term seems to be used quite often online in forums and blogs, but there is not enough for an independent article. -Atmoz (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; any material salvageable by sourcing can be included in Microsoft Windows, Criticism of Microsoft Windows, etc.Simon Dodd (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Criticism of Microsoft Windows. This is certainly a well used term, as a quick Google search will confirm. I found a book reference also. But I think it is best covered within the Criticism article, with a redirect for readers. I was surprised to find how short the Criticism article is! the wub "?!" 20:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the wub - this subject area is covered adequately elsewhere, and there's nothing here that need detain us re merging - I'm sorry, but as soon as the words "this would explain why x would not occur on Unix systems" appears in a computing article, then it's time to peep into the /usr/sys/POV folder - IMHO... --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Registry bloat. References: bloated registry entries, Prevent Registry Bloating, InformationWeek, InfoWorld, Washington Post, and many more. —Noah 05:32, 23 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Litter in the United States[edit]

unreferenced POV fork, unlikely search term, best covered in other articles ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I split it from the litter article to avoid systemic bias issues. The article has some references and lack of any referencing concerns can be resolved by adding a ((tl:fact)) tag or adding refs. Lack of referencing is not a valid reason for deletion. With regards to POV I feel it is no more POV than any other articles such as Environmental issues in the United States, Climate change in New Zealand etc. As for being an unlikely search term I would argue that it is exactly the sort of term that would be used to search for such information. If the info if merged back into the litter article or elsewhere we will be back to systemic bias issues. Also, if it were to be merged back it will have to be split out at some point in the future since WP is always growing in size. Should we also merge the Litter in the United Kingdom and Litter in New Zealand in other articles? There is much systemic bias in WP that makes WP US-centric.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't say that I understand the "systemic bias" argument as an excuse in favor of making separate articles about littering in the U.S., Britain or New Zealand. I'd see it as an argument against inferring that English-speakers are different from the rest of the world when it comes to throwing trash on the ground. Mandsford (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The info about litter in the US made up a significant portion of the article before I split it out. Systemic bias is lessened by giving it its own article and making all the info about litter in specific countries about equal in terms of coverage in the main litter article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourceable certainly. Reasonable editorial decision? Maybe not, but that's not what AfD is for. Hobit (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent article. The issue of litter is important in American thought, viz the patriotic song "America the Beautiful", Trash of the Titans (featuring U2) from the Simpsons, America as a source of Green thought in general, and et cetera. Please see articles recycling and container deposit legislation. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable subject for almost every country. Biophys (talk) 04:52, 23 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 00:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball baseball kickball[edit]

Non-notable game, unsourced. I only get 8 Google hits for 'http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Basketball+baseball+kickball%22+bbk&btnG=Search'. My prod tag was removed by the article's creator. AnyPerson (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no notability given. TheAE talk/sign 05:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a textbook case of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Nyttend (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was disappointed that the author didn't take the time to make up some rules, like "three strikes and you get a freethrow" or something like that. That's why we call it the ban against things "made up in school one day", because we want you to take at least a day to dream it up. Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — At least try to be like BASEketball or something! Definitely WP:MADEUP. MuZemike 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and everyone else's comments. Pyrrhus16 15:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the entry Not sure why you people are allocating time to question the existence of a game that is a pastime for tens of thousands of camp alumni but if you want to be justified in assuming the responsibility of being a gatekeeper protecting wikipedia's integrity you should leave your laptops and experience outdoor activities--there is probably a lot you are not familiar with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.132.95 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're gatekeepers, then who are the keymasters? rimshot Anyways, assume good faith and please refrain from personal attacks at others. MuZemike 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we all got outside a little more often, we would know. Mandsford (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've searched the net and I can't find anything the prove the existence of this sport. BUC (talk) 12:11, 24 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 (G12) by Woody. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 14:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison James (author)[edit]

Delete essentially a vanity article for a person whose notability is marginal at best, created by a SPA in one edit and without sources; the text smells of COPYVIO or COI or ADVERT, best to delete this and if she's really notable perhaps someone will create a NPOV bio of her. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make your mind up? Unless you can positively identify this editor as being the person in question or someone working for them, it's WP:BITEy to expect someone else than this editor to create the article. Also, NPOV can usually be edited out. For this to be deleteable you need to prove it can't be fixed (for example show it's a copyvio) or that no reliable sources exist. You only say the article smelt, but you haven't actually provided any proof it's beyond rescue. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12, and I'm off to so tag. Well, either the editor is "the person in question," or s/he has created an article that's a blatant copyvio of this page. If the former is the case, Ms. James will need to contact OTRS to establish her right to use the material—and then we can delete it as spam. (Oh, and the image in the article appears to be a copyvio as well, since on James's site it's credited to a photographer.) Deor (talk) 12:40, 21 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 00:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Brandi[edit]

Keep, The Left-Hand Path is a quite recent field of study, so any work on the subject and any author seems relevant Alberto Xon 11:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not all PhD's are notable and writing one rather obscure book hasn't confered notability on this guy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete work seems minimal and recent. No discussion of wider impact. Orthorhombic (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Most widely held book in libraries, Momento azul, currently in less than 15 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. The name seems to be common, so one can get quite a lot of false positives through various searches. For example, should not be confused with this chemistry researcher.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One doesn't expect very many library holdings for books in this field, but he has published only one book plus his thesis, and does not hold a senior academic position. Consider again if he becomes more widely published.DGG (talk) 04:32, 23 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 00:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aramean tv[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this internet tv channel is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability asserted. Pyrrhus16 15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, which the nominator should have done instead of bringing this directly to AfD. No notable sources evident, no assertion in article. Rklear (talk) 23:41, 21 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 00:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hakam bin Sa'ad Al-Asheerah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Al-Hakam bin Sa'ad Al-Asheerah

Fails WP:NOTE, along with the fact that I can not find any reliable sources. Tiptoety ^talk 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and lacks notability. Pyrrhus16 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is described as a "tribe" but the title sounds like a personal name. Perhaps it's a family group? Any way, it's hard to really tell what this is, but it doesn't seem notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:03, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Aficionado Association[edit]

No material coverage in English. No suggestion / claim of significant independent coverage in reliable sources in any language. Bongo matic 15:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per arguement proposing deletion of article due to lack of an English language reference, two links to English language websites referencing CAA independantly were added 01-11. See: * English language website referencing CAA

and ACFA international show schedule referencing CAA

In light of this, said arguement in favor of deletion now appears mute. Article is therefore meritable and valid according to wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.218.103.243 (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first link given above is cat-chitchat.pictures-of-cats.org/2008/10/chinese-cat-breeds.html (just some blog that's clearly not a reliable source of encyclopedic information in general) and the reference in it also is only trivial (mentions existence, nothing more), so even if it were a WP:RS the mention would not count. The second link is just a photo gallery -- also not a reliable source, with no info on the association, just photos, so again, if it were a reliable source, the coverage is trivial. DreamGuy (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- A quick search seem to show that the subject is notable in China, 1, 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that pet blogs and websites of that nature fall under reliable sources. Bongo matic 07:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- Another search brings up a more notable fixed reference [42] There are also regular co-sponsored ACFA /CAA events as listed on ACFA websites. [43] For reference, ACFA has a relevant article here on Wikipedia. American Cat Fanciers Association

These are not examples of significant coverage. Bongo matic 09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet clearly significant enough to prove the organization does in fact exist. Phone numbers and Chinese office location published online are consistant and available for verification. The very nature of a foriegn organization, notably any organization of Chinese or non western origin do not necessarily allow for significant English language coverage. Yet several examples in English have been brought forth and listed, whereby CAA is in fact acknowledged. I fail to see the merit of even questioning the existence of an organization that has already been readily acknowledged by a reliable source. Namely an established organization known as the American Cat Fanciers Association. Moreso, the term 'significant coverage' is subjective, and can only be logically interpreted as thus. I've also found no mention on wikipedia pointing to this term as grounds for deletion. By example, one could defer to an organization like Felis Britannica with little or no independant or extensively significant coverage, and question why this article hasn't been considered for deletion. I therefore move that Cat Aficionado Association be kept.

Existence is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion. Significant coverage is discussed in detail. Please refer to the notability guidelines, and specifically the notability guidelines for organizations. Bongo matic 14:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the availability of Chinese sources: "Wikipedia is blocked in some countries due to government censorship, and editing through open proxies, the most common method of circumventing such censorship, is prohibited by Wikipedia policy." (WP:CSB) --J.Mundo (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the relevance of that to this discussion? Are you suggesting that domestic censorship is preventing reliable Chinese sources from covering the (otherwise coverage-worthy) topic of the Cat Afficionado Association, which is why such sources are not available? In fact, the item you quoted explains why it may be difficult for Chinese residents to make changes to Wikipedia, not why there wouldn't be domestic sources available. Bongo matic 15:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Chinese online news providers found several reliable sources with 'significant coverage'.

Most notably on the well established Sina.com [44][45][46][47][48][49][50]

Also see significant coverage on other major Chinese online news portals including(Bai du)[51][52]and Sohu[53][54]

Plus more coverage from several other reliable online news outlets[55][56][57]

There are also many established breeders recognizing and utilizing CAA as a registry[58][[59][60][61][62] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.220.245.57 (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional news coverage from other online news providers[63][64][65][66][67]

Sina and Baidu are (as you pointed out in respect of Baidu) portals. Showing up there is like showing up in Google (see WP:ATA). Moreover, while the subject was mentioned in those articles, it didn't seem to receive any significant coverage in them. Can you please provide a couple that you believe--on their own--demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Don't need another 20 links. Bongo matic 15:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sina.com for example does in fact provide news sourced from established outlets in China. More than just a portal or search engine, Sina.com acts as one of a few primary online filtering outlets for news in China. The articles (20) I've listed links to are as significant and independant as can be expected, in so far as describing an organization and its primary newsworthy topic (competitions, breeding, and animal rescue). Accordingly, the following 2 articles in particular provide more than negligible focused coverage of CAA. [68][69] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.218.103.98 (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the original source? Sina (as you point out) is not a source, but a publisher. Bongo matic 11:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per bongomatic. Not enough reliable, independant sources to be found to demonstrate notability under WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chinese sources are sufficient reason to keep, if they are indeed substantial and about the subject, which is not something I can judge. DGG (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is AfD, not CSD. There is no indication that the sources are reliable. They are served up under a portal's banner, so without further color on the actual sources, there's no reason to think they're other than blogs or websites that would not if in English constitute RS for notability purposes. Why are criteria less stringent for Chinese web content than for English? Bongo matic 07:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A notable and reliable secondary source with a neutral point of view: [70] This source lists other organizations as well, so un-biased neutrality is well established. There is also a book that was published in China which discusses CAA. [71] And the link in Chinese: [72] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.220.62.88 (talk) 17:49, 24 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. kur ykh 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Technology[edit]

While article isn't obviously a PR effort, the company hardly scratches the surface of notability (the one hit, in German, in a Google News search is about trade name infringement, and the archives don't give much more either--but a lot more press releases). I can't find any independent and in-depth coverage of the company, and until that coverage turns up, the article, in my opinion, should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:CORP. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I'm not sure what nominator's looking for, but I found a few resources: ([73], [74], [75], [76], [77]). Plus there is some mention about name infringement, but I think I've narrowed it down to company in question. To me, these sources dignify significant coverage. ^LeaveSleaves 20:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be looking for things that aren't press releases--the five links you gave are all to press releases, and those are specifically excluded under WP:CORP, see Primary Criteria. I am not trying to deny that the company exists; I see no notability, and primary sources, which one could call these press releases if one is in a kind mood, do not help establish that. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that at least some of those articles, viz. links 1, 3 and 5 can qualify as news articles. I accept that 2 and 4 are press releases, albeit from other companies and not Galaxy. The most notable thing I found about the company is its partnership with nvidia. But there is no indication of exclusivity in that partnership. Overall, I agree with your assessment and am not particularly gung-ho about the overall notability. ^LeaveSleaves 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if we can straighten it out. There's more in google News when you look in the archive also. But there seems to be more than one company involved here, There's the computer graphics card company in the article with an adequate ref. at [78] , there's a company selling backup software with a very good RS [79] and there's a possible There's a network company [80] and there'swhat seems to be a parent company of at least some of these [81]. DGG (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links 7 and 8 that you entered above is actually about a technology named "Galaxy" and not the company itself. When I looked for sources, I also found these links, but on closer examination it is clear that they have nothing to do with this company. ^LeaveSleaves 06:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability guidelines. While mentions of the company pop up in the news and we can verify its existance, there is no batch of independant reliable third-party sources written about the company to establish its notabilty. Themfromspace (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. Noticed I hadn't voted. ^LeaveSleaves 12:17, 24 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 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heimishe Kretchme[edit]

Non-notable website with COI, comes off like an advertisement. Lots of POV abound. An example of how the article works: the citation for visitor reaction is this Facebook posting. 90% of the references are from the forum itself or related blogs and similar materials. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks notability. Pyrrhus16 15:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of third-party reliable sources to justify notability. I noticed that couple of editors, include an admin, tried to help the creator by informing him/her with necessary policies/guidelines and userfying the page. But as it stands, I doubt that the subject is in fact notable. I think the closing administrator should take this fact in consideration and consider informing the user why exactly the article was deleted. ^LeaveSleaves 12:13, 24 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) Little Mountain 5 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Buttel[edit]

Delete Fails Notability requirements Mrmcdonnell (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a fellow of the AAAS means he passes WP:PROF #3, the named chair gives him a pass of #5, his two journal editorships likely pass him on #8 as well, and the CALS News reference lists many publications making likely a pass of #1. And the four obituaries provide plenty of material to expand this stub into a real article. It's kind of a shame nobody did that already in the six years the article existed as a sub-stub, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After David Eppstein's substantial expansion, there's nothing else to say but Keep and thanks.John Z (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eppstein. Meets multiple WP:PROF criteria. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment) and several other criteria as well, as noted by David Eppstein.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:25, 21 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. Magioladitis (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Karl of Brunswick / Count Isouard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Duke Karl of Brunswick / Count Isouard

Seems a pretty clear case of WP:ONEEVENT - these people are (slightly) famous only because they were on the losing end of one of the most famous chess games of all time, the Opera game. The two individuals could have pages which are redirect to Opera game, but I can't imagine anyone typing in the name of this article ("Duke Karl of Brunswick / Count Isouard") to search for it. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notable chess game already has an article. If the individuals are notable independent of the chess game, they should have individual articles. "Duke Karl of Brunswick" has an article at Charles II, Duke of Brunswick. "Count Isouard" may not be notable, even though the chess game is. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this awkwardly named page that all but argues for the non-notability of its own subject(s). The creator may make separate arguments for the notability of the two individuals if he or she wishes to do so. JJL (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both of the two are individually notable as nobility. The chess game they played together against Morphy is notable as it is cited in lots of general instruction chess books (and some non-chess publications) as an example of open tactical play. However, bundling two people together in an article for anything they may have done together is very awkward with a few exceptions for the cases where they are almost invariably tied together in history (e.g. Gilbert & Sullivan or Orville and Wilbur Wright.) Playing a single chess game together is hardly grounds for making such an exception. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Opera Game against Morphy is already covered elsewhere and the title is not useful. As Sjakkale says, making a combo article when the duo played one game of chess together is a bad idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by Peter Ballard, Ryan Paddy, and JJL. Krakatoa (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjakkalle Voorlandt (talk) 10:02, 22 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. Renata (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queens Economic Development Corporation[edit]

Notability not established for this organisation. The article is written like an advertorial, most of which is directly copied from here. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Copyvio - speedy possibilities? --DaveG12345 (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G12) — I'll bite. Blatant copyright infringement of the above web page. MuZemike 14:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copyvio. Pyrrhus16 15:18, 21 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. Tone 22:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harold's Hills[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Harold's Hills

Orphaned, dead-end, unreferenced article about a non-notable freeware game. The bulk of the article seems to be a game guide, which happens to be one of the many things Wikipedia is not. --Dynaflow babble 02:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources to back on the material in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks notability. Pyrrhus16 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete lacks any credible assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 21 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 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gvalda[edit]

Surname article about a Lithuanian surname. Removed A7 tag as that does not apply-- not about an individual or group. Because of the languagebarrier, notability is difficult to assess. I would like to seek a consensus before proceeding with deletion, and to be sure if/if not notable. 02:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 02:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a non-notable surname. The article's creator himself admitted on the talk page that there is little to no information existing on the name. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Family name#Lithuania mentions that Gvalda is a common Lithuanian surname, I suppose that is erroneous? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's wrong -- added by an IP on Jan 19. Removed. Renata (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- utterly non-notable. Probably created as part of family genealogy research. Renata (talk) 16:38, 21 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, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seddie[edit]

non-notable neologism, sounds like some fan just made it up. flaming lawyer^c 01:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft. Highly in-universe, and full of OR, opinion, and weasels as well. Xenon54 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to iCarly. JJL (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for your shipping or PortmanteauCoupleNames. the wub "?!" 16:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notable content. Plastikspork (talk) 01:04, 22 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, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasey Naik[edit]

This article is about a musician based in Saudi Arabia. The article does not make any major claims of notability, nor does it appear to fulfill any of Wikipedia's notability criteria for music-related articles. As such, unless the concerns I've named have been rectified in the article, it should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks notability. Pyrrhus16 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:58, 21 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 A7 (non-admin closure). Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 03:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Medical Leaders[edit]

Non-notable organization. A Google search for "Minnesota Medical Leaders" turns up only 190 results, the majority of which seem to be blogs or websites affiliated with the organization; searches using Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar return absolutely nothing related to the article's subject. As such, it fails the criteria outlined at WP:ORG, as it has not received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Unscented (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the best source I could find was four sentences in a University of Minnesota student newspaper article about a "health careers fair" [82], a level of coverage which does not meet WP:GNG. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 01:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7 as non-notable group (not even an assertion of notability), so tagged. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 01:44, 21 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 Eddie Murphy#Personal life . MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atisone Seiuli[edit]

Delete an unsalvageable WP:BLP violation. She's only notable for one event, but unfortunately she's dead so WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply. But her famous car-mate is not dead and WP:BLP applies full-on. The event is covered sufficiently at his bio or if you want more, merge what is sourced and salvageable (nothing really). The whole article is innuendo, suspicion, and sourced to rotten.com, imdb.com, and other sites which are not WP:RS for such claims as murder conspiracy and what may or may not have transpired... Best to delete the whole thing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it's also been tagged for over a year and not cleansed of its problems. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Removed unsourced claims and BLP violations. Edison (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eddie Murphy#Personal life and merge anything useful. There's one sentence there right now that doesn't even mention Seiuli's name. Rklear (talk) 02:08, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Hightower Smith[edit]

This was originally a nomination to CSD that I rejected. I have found enough sources to pass WP:V, although I am not convinced he passes either of the criteria under WP:ATHLETE. Besides this is the likely WP:COI issue that the article suffers. Trusilver 03:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability, and I was trying to find some. Collect (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it is verifiable, he meets the criteria as having played on the highest possible professional level of the game. (Professional Darts Corporation) It split of from the better known British Darts Federation, but that has no influence. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of verifiability. If he is playing with PDC, I haven't found the evidence to support it other than the link in the article (which is simply a list of results for a single tournament). There doesn't appear to have been a single word written about him anywhere else online. And his being touted as "up and coming" by an anon on the article's talk page gives me flashbacks to a thousand different A7-speedied band articles. --Finngall ^talk 11:23, 21 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 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WorkACE[edit]

Does not meet Notability Criteria

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the software was just released. The article itself is one big advertisement with the opening paragraph paraphrased from the company website. The only coverage I could find was this brief announcement. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my analysis of the sources below, I still feel that there is no standalone notability for WorkACE. However, an argument could be made for sufficient notability for the company QXSystems that an article could be created for it, and it would be appropriate to merge some of this material to the company's article, or in the alternative, delete if there is no merge target. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I would like to defend the deletion for the following reasons:

a. You wrote, "the software was just released". Its not released now, WorkACE was released in 2005. Thats almost 4 years now. b. You wrote, "The article itself is one big advertisement with the opening paragraph paraphrased from the company website". Yes, I agree its from the website, but this is way to describe WorkACE in a small para. If you feel it doesn't follow Wikipedia standards, can you please help me in defining the same. c. You wrote, "The only coverage I could find was this brief announcement". Its not correct, please refer to the following links:

There are many if you would search for them. d. You wrote, "That's not enough to establish notability". If the above links are not enough, can you please refer to:

http://pcquest.ciol.com/content/topstories/2008/408010301.asp
http://pcquest.ciol.com/content/topstories/2007/107120408.asp
http://www.smbit.in/ (on this jump to page 43 of September, 2008 issue)
http://www.scandasia.com/viewNews.php?news_id=3072

other links can be searched for or can be shared upon request.

Please note that QXSystems the company behind WorkACE has been there for almost 11 years now and WorkACE.com is only the SaaS outlet, which was launched in 2007 itself(which is almost 2 yrs now).

Rgds, Sushant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.19.141 (talk)

Analysis of sources

Source 1 sounds like a regurgitated press release. And it likely is since the site publishes user submitted content. Not a reliable source for notability.

Source 2 is taken from Business Wire which is a press release service. Not a reliable source for notability.

Source 3 reads like a regurgitated press release. I invite other editors to review and make their own judgement. For me, it doesn't establish notability.

Source 4 is an article about the the company QXSystems, and only just mentions WorkACE. I would say this article contributes to establishing notability for the company, but not the product.

Source 5 is the same as the article I dug up. It's a very brief announcement about the company, and only mentions. WorkACE. As with source 4, I would say this article contributes to establishing notability for the company, but not the product.

Source 6 is a from PRWeb, a press release service. Not a reliable source for notability.

From the additional sources provided:

Source 1 is an actual article about the software. This does help establish notability.

Source 2 is an article that is about software as a service. It mentions WorkACE, but that is all. A mention does not help establish notability.

Source 3 has the product in a list provided material in the cover story. This one is marginal. For me, it is still only a mention, but I invite other editors to review for themselves.

Source 4 is an interview with Johan M Karlstedt, founder of the company. Workace has a paragrah in the article. The website indicates Press Releases, Contributions, Article ideas, etc. welcome. , os it is unclear how much editorial oversight is put into the work. In any case, this is still for me just a mention of the software. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on this, it would appear that the ip-editor signing as Sushant is affiliated with the company. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have deleted it as blatant spam. Phrases like "all compiled into a comprehensive, structured and cognitive online computing environment." are a dead giveaway. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Software is too new to be notable, and all the "sources" found above are press releases that don't discuss the software in the detail required by WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 11:09, 21 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 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lewis Show[edit]

WP:NN local radio program. Some G-hits but nothing that would pass WP:RS, mostly blogs, podcast listings etc. Failed PROD by sole author's removal. Toddst1 (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~This radio personality has received a fair amount of fame for his right wing viewpoint. I'm finding a number of articles in Minneapolis and St. Paul newspapers as well as some stories elsewhere that look like wire reports. Also appears to have guest hosted the Rush Limbaugh show. The article as it exists now is barely a stub and needs some substantial improvement, with sufficient references of course.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to station article.--Rtphokie (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable jenuk1985 (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KTLK-FM; unnotable on his own. Nate • (chatter) 03:38, 21 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 23:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esenthel Engine[edit]

Declined G11 (for blatant advertisement) with the reason that it is "definitely not spam" and "can be improved." I, however, disagree with that. Besides being only nominated by the 11th Annuel Independent Games Festival (it hasn't actually won an award in anything as of yet), I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that can establish notability as shown in this cursory Google search here. I also believe that the article is basically advertising itself, which is shown by telling users how much using the engine costs as well as specifying in an advertorial tone the requirements and documentation of the engine (also failing Wikipedia is not your own web host, as the whole article is basically acting as a directory page of a video game engine). MuZemike 06:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 06:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it was a finalist (but not a winner) in the 2007 Intel Game Demo competition[83]. SharkD (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just as a note, I was the one who declined the speedy. I have nothing against deletion and was considering tagging it with a prod, but this article is certainly not blatant spam. There is no indication within the article that it is self-promotional, nor is it written like an arguement. However, I'm not sure of the notability (as I have not researched it), so AfD is also an appropriate venue. No hard feelings if deleted, eh? DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 12:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent references (WP:V), no assertion of notability (WP:N). Being the finalist in the Intel Game Demo competition helps support a claim of importance, but not on its own.
Delete - Doesn't look like anyone has found any good sources. SharkD (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No verifiable and reliable sources or claim of notability. 16x9 (talk) 13:47, 23 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 23:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Woods Camp[edit]

I think that this article should be deleted as there is a lack of reliable sources independant of the summer camp itself or the camp's parent organisation, the YMCA of Greater Boston, which means that the article does not meet the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources or Wikipedia:Notability policies/guidelines.

The only sources provided in the article are two citations from the camp's website, and one cittion of the YMCA Greater Boston. Searching Google News for "North Woods" "Summer Camp" comes up with 171 results across all dates, but all of the ones I looked at used the term "North Woods" as a term for a geographical area, instead of the name of a specific summer camp. Filtering by adding "New Hampshire" failed to bring up any results specific to this camp, and using YMCA or Winnipesaukee (the lake the camp is on) as a qualifier provided only one relevant result,[84] a passing mention in an obituary for a man who worked as a chaplain at the camp at some point during his life. Similar searches of Google Scholar provided no relevant results I could find.

If multiple, reliable, independant sources can be provided, or the existence of such demonstrated, I would be willing to withdraw the nomination.

Declaration of Conflict: I worked at this camp as a foreign counselor a few years ago. The place is amazing, and I enjoyed my time there. However, I still believe that the camp does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- saberwyn 07:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources and lacks notability. Pyrrhus16 15:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, no reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:38, 21 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 00:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powersurge (Bangladeshi band)[edit]

Another MySpace band, fails WP:MUSIC, and I not found information in any website, magazine or something like. Cannibaloki 14:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC.Synchronism (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:MUSIC#C7 & possibly C1. [85], [86], [87]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSIC#C1. Also, won national music competition. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This seems to be on the cusp of notability, but fails in its present state: I don't buy that it passes c7 (they are certainly not "the most prominent representative of" thrash metal, the style they claim to play, and the article makes no claim that they are "the most prominent representative ... of the local scene of a city"), but might pass c1 if additional sources are added. c9 is also possible if "Drockstars" is "a major music competition" - but one might think that a major music competition would be notable enough to have a wikipedia entry. If additional materials are added demonstrating notability, I'll change to keep, but for now, I must say delete. Simon Dodd (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: While the group has won a minor tv-based competition, it is not a popular band in Bangladesh. Not very popular in the mainstream music of Bangladesh... and the "thrash rock" community is not a big part of local music scene either. --Ragib (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 02:00, 22 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. kur ykh 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Carlson[edit]

At this point, I don't think she is notable enough to warrant the article. If she makes it to at least the top 36, then at least redirect, but for now, delete. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: If the article is kept or redirected, should it go to Casey Carlson (singer)? There are several articles pointing to a Peanuts voice actor with the name Casey Carlson, but that was a red link. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. American Idol does not make someone notable. Wait to see if they ever warrant notability. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 04:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Any person is entitled to a wikipedia page, noteworthy in YOUR OPINION or not. 2. The fact that she has appeared on and made it to the 2nd round of this highest rated of TV events is noteworthy. 3. the fact that you all have heard about her enough to come looking for her to delete, means she has been visible and could be considered noteworthy. 4. Wikipedia rules clearly have guidelines for "people who are relatively unknown" and "who are notable for only one event"... all indicating that we are allowed to maintain a wikipedia entry for Casey even if people might consider her relatively unknown, noteworthy, etc... There are no rules that I see prohibiting entries for anyone who is considered not noteworthy or the like — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.246.2.30 (talk • contribs) 17:09, January 21, 2009

The guideline you cite (WP:ONEVENT) states that "Coverage in reliable sources may at times be extensive nd may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event." Casey Carlson certainly won't meet this unless she gets on to the American Idol finals, which is not guaranteed. The Wikipedia guideline on notability clearly does prohibit articles on those who are not noteworthy. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- there are no sources and no convincing assertion of notability (merely appearing on a game show doesn't cut it). Reyk _YO! 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 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 San Fu Maltha with no prejudice to reversion. This is really a Keep closure with a personal editorial decision to redirect (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fu Works[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep See [88] -- San Fu Matha does get mentioned in a RS for a film which is alsready on WP (actually a number of mentions, albeit none done about the company). Definitely meets notability standards, but the article is not of high quality at this point. Collect (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in Dutch media ([89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]) apart from coverage from English media for the film Black Book (film). 25 Other credits present. In case the final verdict still leans towards delete, at least it should be redirected to San Fu Maltha. ^LeaveSleaves 12:01, 24 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 Fluxx. Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fluxx goals[edit]

Detailed game guide. Already an article about the game itself Fluxx, this page is solely covering goals in the game. No concensus reached from merge discussion at Talk:Fluxx goals. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Material is gameguide specific. The parent article describes how goals work and gives examples. There is no need for an exhaustive list of each goal card, so merging is not a good idea. gnfnrf (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fluxx. Listing one set of goals is a reasonable extension to the game article, as the game is admittedly complicated for outsiders to understand at first. I don't see justification for this as a stand-alone. The creator has suggested extending the article to list all goals for all versions of Fluxx, which would be useful to players, but does (IMHO) fall foul of WP:NOTGUIDE. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fluxx and merge anything of value; game is notable but this is mostly just a list plus some game advice. JJL (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever here is actually of value. Very gameguide-ish in my opinion. Not to mention this doesn't meet WP:N but the merge target clearly does. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 21 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FrontAccounting[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is one line long. No notability. Found a blog post about it at http://www.pbooks.org/blog/2007/05/25/frontaccounting/, but it hardly saves this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepy2222 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 26 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 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Turner & Company, LLC and J.P. Turner & Company Capital Management, LLC[edit]

A tiny boutique investment banker, only external reference seems to be a little-known financial blog. The 160 "offices" are apparently independent brokers who signed up to add this company to the services they offer. Does not meet WP:CORP. Owen× ☎ 14:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks notability and no reliable sources. Pyrrhus16 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sounds like advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- These companies operate as any private independent RIA and broker/dealer does. They are small boutique firms and their independent offices are no different than those at LPL Financial or Raymond James. These articles provide company history and include references to SIPC, NIBA, FSI and Investment News. The company's are small and still relatively new, there are not many independently written articles other than those cited. Wheats72 14:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The above account's only edits are these articles and links to them. Owen× ☎ 15:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond James is a $2 billion company that has been around for 45 years, and is a constituent of the S&P MidCap 400. You can find thousands of references to it and articles by their analysts in the Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine and other notable publications. If and when J.P.Turner reaches this size and fame, it will meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Owen× ☎ 15:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't care how long they've been around or how much their turnover is. I smell spam. Peridon (talk) 23:36, 24 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. kur ykh 02:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian Morrissi[edit]

Query if notable under WP:MUSICBIO; 82,000 hits on Google, but many seem to reference or copy the Wikipeda entry. Edit history suggests that there may previously have been a nomination for deletion on March 8 2008, but I don't see it considered in the archives for March 7-10 2008. Simon Dodd (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 82,000? Google is showing up only 111 hits, but you are right many of them appear to be wikipedia mirros and blog entries. JamesBurns (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I get about 1,260 for "Rhian Morrissi" and about 81,000 omitting the quotation marks.Simon Dodd (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder why there is such a huge gap in results. I've tried it with the quotation marks and without - all around 111 hits. JamesBurns (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ms Morrissi's nationality is Welsh so one might expect to find significant coverage of her using Google if we restrict our search to the UK. Unfortunately, there are only five hits when I do this[95] and nothing useful. Google News throws up one hit from which we learn that she performed at a charity fund-raising function at which attendees enjoyed a six-course meal[96] and police officers donated their services to take photographs of guests arriving[97]. Googling using her full name, "Rhian Louise Morrissi" throws up to hits to the BBC website[98]; although my Welsh is not good(!), both of these links refer to the same event, the Eisteddfod Genedlaethol Cymru, and have the appearance of only mentioning her (and others) in passing, that is, the significant coverage here is about the Eisteddfod and not her. Searches through the major UK broadsheets, the Independent, The Times, The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph, yields nothing nor do searches through a selection of Welsh papers[99][100][101][102]. Regretfully, delete on the basic that there exists no significant coverage of Ms Morrissi in reliable sources independent of the subject per WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 27 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 23:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conquer Club[edit]

Web game, not a single reliable source in the article establishes notability, although it's been marked since April last year. Peephole (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Spiesr (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Spiesr (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no external media coverage. Alexius08 (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article does not present any sources to satisfy WP:N. Ghits mostly directory entries and the like. Marasmusine (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The best articles I could find were these: [103][104], which are just OKish. The rest seem to just be the typical MMOG ranking sites. SharkD (talk) 18:10, 23 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.