< January 21	January 23 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Ellis (guitarist)[edit]

Delete. This page was previously deleted, I think. It shows no evidence of notability and the creator's username seems to indicate a conflict of interests. Boleyn2 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all reasons above. --Teancum (talk) 01:24, 25 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) 23:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:16, 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 beaten like a rented mule.-Wafulz (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John "Holy" MacKenaw[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John "Holy" MacKenaw

Unreferenced stub about a non-notable athlete. Article says he hardly played any games, and almost 100 years ago. My Google search turned up no results for this name (only results for the "Holy Mackinaw" oski yell)...and a search for "John MacKenaw" without the Holy in it turned up a grand total of two results. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on the Toronto Maple Leafs site for their 1918-1919 roster doesn't list him. A similar search on NHL.com was equally fruitless. However, this is not definitive as the records from that era are likely incomplete, and sources are likely to be in newspapers. Per WP:ATHLETE, he would meet the criterion for playing at the top level of his sport. Given that the article is brand new and has not had a chance for references to be researched, and the difficulty of doing the research, it shoulod kept to give it a chance. -- Whpq (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Full disclosure: I have long believed that the standards for WP:ATHLETE are too lax (compared to standards for academics or various other kinds of people).... I was trying not to make a POINTy nom with this, though, as i really do believe there are notability concerns...I just figure I should get that out there so you know. This isn't the place for me to talk about whether or not WP:ATHLETE is a good standard, so I'll keep my mouth shut for now :). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I respect the obvious determination of Whpq and Politzer to assume good faith here, a hockey player who isn't even listed in the historical records of the team he purportedly played for is at least as likely to be a hoax as a historical oversight — and given that fact, in the absence of actual references I really don't think we can assume that he's a real person who's been missed by the history books rather than a figment of somebody's imagination. Delete unless references can be added to confirm that he ever actually existed. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The amount of games is irrelevant three games with a notable club makes someone notable. Unfortunately, LexisNexis turned up nothing either; unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doing a google search for John "Holy" Mackenaw and a search with the last name variant Mackinaw leaves me believing that we have a WP:HOAX here. Not just for the lack of information on a Hockey player, but for the links that are available that seem to reference the exclamation "Holy Makinaw!". Smells fishy to me. --Pparazorback (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soon as I saw the name I knew it was a hoax. -Djsasso (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Hoax and a particularly lame joke. It's a play on the Maple Leaf's play by play man's ridiculous love for the phrase "Holy Mackinaw". I'm also rather surprised that nobody else has yet mentioned that there was no such team as the Toronto Maple Leafs in 1918-19. Reso lute 15:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gotta love Joe Bowen's classic Oski Yell. Good observation by Resolute as well, definate HOAX article here. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:31, 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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I Do Not) Hook Up[edit]

Song by Kelly Clarkson, "probably the second single" of her upcoming album according to an interview she gave. Not officially announced, no reliable source for that, no significant coverage. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC#Songs, redirect declined twice by creator. Amalthea 23:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as stated above 76.109.42.17 (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Currently fails WP:N, is clearly WP:CRYSTAL, and has very few sources. Singles are not singles until they're released, because plans can change. Mariah Carey, for example, said that "Say Somethin'" would be the first single from The Emancipation of Mimi. It was her fifth (or sixth in certain parts of the world). Future singles aren't set in stone. SKS2K6 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Light tap on the crystal from the hammer. Wait until the actual album comes out next time. Nate • (chatter) 05:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Song currently fails Wikipedia:Music. "My Life Would Suck Without You" had a very hard time finally becoming an article on here despite reliable sources like Rolling Stone. One mention by the artist while the current single just came out does not merit an article. Aspects (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Song is not confirmed as a single, was mentioned as MAYBE being the next single by Clarkson in a radio interview. 76.109.42.17 (talk) 15:40, 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SaxonAir[edit]

Delete shows no notability whatsoever. Sorry for my faux pas. Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there seems to be non-trivial articles from independent, 3rd party sources on the page. The publications aren't exactly the New York Times, but they seem to be important in the air industry. Also "saxonair" has 2730 ghits (although that by itself might not be that meaningful). In the end, it's not Delta Airlines, but it seems notable enough to make the grade here. SMSpivey (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent-sized company, article has sources (needs more sources, but at least it has some), and Google search turns up lots of results in prominent places. Looks like a legit company to me. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N unless those sources in the article aren't reliable/independent for some reason. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Young yet notable in the UK Avaiation industry, citing more references and articles than many others in the same industry in the same geographical area. A genuine entry. Also, articles from the BBC (British Broadcating Corporation) and EBAN (European Business Air News) add to notability. The BBC's on a par with CNN etc. PA2858453 (talk) 13:10, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul and Carol Mott[edit]

Delete local radio personalities, nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only reliable source with significant coverage that I can find is this. Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A1 no notability, and not enough context to retain as is in any case. Mayalld (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's too little article about insignificant personages. Delete, LexArt (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, not even stub quality article.--70.63.155.173 (talk) 01:56, 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 per WP:CSD#G12 (blatant copyright violation). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Syed Razi Muhammad[edit]

Non-notable doctor. ninety:one 22:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio The only content is blatanly plagiarized from here (see the left bar). Even if you clean that up, the article fails notability requirements—all it's got is a non-third-party source saying he's "internationally renowned." Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:16, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Maxwell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Conspiracy theorist, article fails to establish notability through reliable sources according to WP:BIO. The article was already deleted once for the same reason. Peephole (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and plaster with cleanup tags: appears to have some notable coverage (Consumer Affairs, etc.) and involvement with FTC. Needs better referencing to support the statements, but they at least make a claim for notability. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being involved in a lawsuit and mentioned in one magazine article is hardly a claim to fame.--Peephole (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my comment to "weak keep"...I don't know a lot about the coverage, but I did notice that the "criticism of Jordan Maxwell" section appears to mostly be user-generated Youtube videos, which suggests that his work hasn't been addressed by respectable sources. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since he's claimed to be a researcher and independent scholar, it seems that WP:PROF is the standard to use (after all, why should we be less strict about non-mainstream researchers than mainstream ones?) but he's not close to a pass on that. Nor does he seem to pass WP:BIO (the standard we end up having to use for fringe researchers because they invariably fail WP:PROF): there's only one thing I see listed that has the superficial appearance of a reliable source (the "BBC America" link to bbcoa.com) but on reading the article more carefully it appears to be another of the subject's own sites; the real BBC America is bbcamerica.com. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with the idea of holding conspiracy theorists or non-mainstream researchers to WP:PROF scrutiny. They don't publish in peer-reviewed journals because their ideas are not generally accepted and they also are unlikely to hold any seat of power in an educational organization. Using WP:PROF sets them up for failure from the outset. Just using WP:BIO which applies to any living person is a lot more fair. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, but I don't think he passes WP:BIO either, as I explained. My point was that sometimes in this sort of AfD people will try to use some sort of weakened form of WP:PROF, that the subject has published a few works which a few people have cited but not on the scale needed to really pass WP:PROF, and we shouldn't be considering that as an argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete $_Has-received-significant-coverage-in reliable-secondary-sources-that-are-independent-of-the-subject = NO. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:00, 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. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wurstcamp[edit]

Note - this article was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2009, but the discussion space was blanked. This discussion was recreated on 5 February 2009, so when closing it please use the latter date as the time the discussion began. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability of this fast food enterprise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I love wurst, I have to say delete. Google search turns up nothing noteworthy other than their official site (and in fact it thinks I'm trying to search for "West-Camp" rather than "Wurstcamp"). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing comes up in German Google web or news (www.google.de). I like the ad though! Curry To Go! J L G 4 1 0 4 15:27, 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, David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. German wikipedia has no entry, can't find any usable sources on it. Cazort (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Dormer Schneider[edit]

Young artist with little notability per WP:CREATIVE. The only references are links to collaborators: none are non-trivial, third-party sources. freshacconci talktalk 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are barely any results in this Google Search (none of them show notability) and no sources in this Google News search. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 22:54, 22 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]
Delete not ready for an encyclopedia..Modernist (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:56, 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 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 100th human[edit]

NN book by a small NN publisher. Fails WP:BK, no 3rd party sources, Wikipedia is not a book review site. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't show notability. TheAE talk/sign 20:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to state why the book is notable and since I can't find any significant references or reviews, I can't tell it myself either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 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 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bosphorus Quartet[edit]

Non-notable group. You have to be careful when googling "Bosphorus Quartet"; this article, for instance, refers to Bosphorus String Quartet, a different article. JaGa^talk 20:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; one recording doesn't make them notable. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 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 keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rimbaud and modern culture[edit]

This is trivial listcruft at best. Relevant facts (which is certainly not the whole article), belong in the main Rimbaud article. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep... I don't know, really, how we look at these lists in general. This thing certainly could do with some sources, and that's putting it really, really, mildly. Then again, it might well be useful for students of Rimbaud to have such a list, and some of this information is without a doubt useful--the less drastic alternative to deletion would be to merge, either to those influenced by Rimbaud or to the Rimbaud main article. The first option dissolves a list of pretty important effects of Rimbaud's life and work, the second would necessitate serious cutting, probably. Then again, the title is wrong--this is not an essay-type article, it's a list. I'm going to go with keep, since I think that the list can be of use, but with the reservations I noted above. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prime example of a poor article that needs work, not deletion. As a list it's not actually a bad one - this is the basic source material for producing a good encyclopedic article on the topic, and the topic itself is excellent. We have a Rimbaud biog, but we could certainly use an article on more recent influences he has had. Needs a bunch of work, but nor is it harmful to the encyclopedia as it is, so there's no express reason to kill it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Andy Dingley. Rimbaud's influence has been fairly pervasive, and has in fact perked down to the level of popular culture. By and large, the article is largely self-referencing, albeit to primary sources. There have been discussions in secondary sources; I'm now in the process of reading a small book about Patti Smith's Horses album, and may have some to add after I finish it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A highly influential poet, whose influence should be described. The article needs work, but won't get it if it gets deleted. Should not be merged to the main article, as more than a sentence or two there would probably give the subject undue weight. JulesH (talk) 15:54, 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 WP:SNOW Delete. Unverifiable and probable hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grilled Cheese Party[edit]

Is this a hoax? I do not see any sources to prove this. Otherwise, notable? TheAE talk/sign 20:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless they can come up with some very good references. (Could even be spam - someone trying to shift the last of the stock?) (OK, I am cynical...) Peridon (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for the name itself does not find it. Nor searches including either Will Ferrell, Comedy Central, or any of the retailers. Not is it to be found on any blogs. If not a hoax, it certainly seems to have been forgotten. Further, Tiscali.com seems to have the most cpmprehensive Will Ferrell biography available on the web... and they say nothing about this film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on MQS's authority. (If MQS can't save it, it can't be saved.) Oh, and I also believe it's a hoax. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grill er - I mean delete. Obvious hoax if nobody anywhere can corroborate it. Firestorm (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB and Google books have nothing. Nothing under Will Ferrell and nothing at all on IMDB. Video on the web can't really be "impounded" so I smell a hoax. Scarykitty (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Film starring two major Hollywood stars, on sale at Best Buy, but no mention of it on the web or in IMDB? --Clay Collier (talk) 09:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Lists of "unusual" things are having mixed fortunes in the article namespace currently. Some have been deleted, others have been nominated for deletion, but kept; reasons cited for deletion include that they are "unencyclopaedic", that "unusual" is in the eye of the beholder and thus contravenes our neutral point of view policy, that such lists are not verifiable, and that such a list amounts to original research. I have no opinion on this subject, other than our deletion decisions in this area should be consistent, and so I'm adopting a neutral stance. Note however that this deletion nomination seeks to establish community consensus for this article, not for others. There have been previous deletion discussions for this article, which have resulted in its retention. SP-KP (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comment It looks like this is actually the fourth nomination. Aleta ^Sing 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice list, and makes you want to cite WP:IAR, but isn't it just copying the Bristol list (ref. 3)? Additionally the list includes many regular names like cinnamaldehyde. Put this list to some other Wiki that doesn't try to be an actual general encyclopedia. For example, the article Snipe hunt was also purged of a funny, but very long list of anecdotal examples that can virtually never be cited or made verifiable. --Vuo (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the keep comments in previous AfDs...there are cited RS for the topic itself (supporting this topic as a grouping and that these entries belong to it, not just proving that specific entries themselves exist), so it's not listcruft or OR to have this article. Interesting to me with any simple List Of article is that (per WP:V) the list part really is likely to be an amalgamation of cited-refs' lists. Unfortunately, this article still needs work (also per previous AfDs) to clarify scope and/or rename, but as usual "needs improvement" is an editorial (!= deletion) issue. However, even those discussions had no consensus about what specifically would improve it ("better title to clarify topic/scope" but all ideas seem found to be less suitable, etc). I'm confused by the nom too...feels a lot like "let's nominate random individual articles and hope most get the same AfD result" (that's almost WP:POINT!) rather than actually having a centralized discussion. And given that this AfD is explicitly not to set precedent, why bother doing this one article? I'd rather see a real discussion on "the future of List Of articles" widely advertised than to sneak up on consensus with some lists without others knowing their fate seems to depend on that. DMacks (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it violates WP:NPOV. Whatever constitutes an "unusual" name is in the eye of the beholder, and any appearances on this list are inherently subjected to personal POV. Themfromspace (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Unusual' is inherently a subjective standard. Without a clear standard for inclusion, the list is just an Internet amusement. Not particularly encyclopedic in subject matter. A list of compounds that have non-standard names (names which violate ordinary chemical naming conventions) would be reasonable; this seems much more broad and vague. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That isn't possible. In practice, practically all organic compounds are called by their non-IUPAC trivial names, unless the trivial name has been "blessed by the IUPAC", of course. --Vuo (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we can agree on that, isn't it possible to rename the article and trim some entries? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm afraid that using the word unusual is a neccesary evil because you can't call the article List of chemical compounds with names implying bodily functions, swear words and words normally having a different meaning. As long as the criteria for what exactly is considered unusual are mentioned in the lead section, it should be okay to have a less than perfect title. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would changing it to remarkable help? Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep invalid and confused reasons for nomination. This is one of a series of similar AfDs initiated by the nominator. If consistency is desired, then the proper place to determine consensus on "list of unusual ..." articles is by discussion at Wikipedia talk:Lists or similar, not by initiating AfDs on individual lists - what useful conclusions can you draw from a bunch of scattered AfD discussions ?? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources included in the discussion at the top of the list indicate the notability of the general category; concerns with subjectivity of the criterion can be addressed by requiring a reliable source to have commented on the name's unusual nature. Given that many of the items are included because their names are amusing (also subjective, but verifiable in the same way) I would suggest renaming 'unusual' to 'unusual or amusing'. JulesH (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep For a number of reasons. 1. There have been three nominations already. Repeating the discussion is eating away editing time. The objections raised in the previous discussion (main concern was lack of citations) have been acknowledged and have been remedied. The article has not changed to a significant degree since the last discussion 2. This page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and endorsed by the chemistry community. 3. Lists are useful tools in an ever more complex technological world. 4. The Editors who oppose the article or parts of the article have not investigated other less severe options than downright deletion V8rik (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to previous discussion that already closed as keep followed by a second discussion in which the community still had no consensus to delete. The article passes WP:LISTS by having a discriminate inclusion criteria, i.e. only verifiable items, only verifiable items that are chemical compounds, and only verifiable chemical compounds that have unusual names. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a criterion for speedy keep. Please see WP:SK. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless it should be speedily kept, because once we get on to third nominations of articles that have been kept, it becomes disruptive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV. Who decides that the compound name is unusual? Stifle (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The cited published sources. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When a first discussion is keep, and a second no consensus, it's reasonable to try a third, to see if opinion is changing. Actually, though, I think it is changing in the direction of keeping list articles if there's any reasonable basis for them. In this case, there's no question of notability, since all the substances are notable. That the names are in fact considered by chemistry to be unusual is shown by the sources. The Nikon book and the Metanomski article given as general references explain the concept and validate the entries. Most org chem courses tend to spend sometime on this, presumably in the hope of enlivening the subject, which accounts for the large amount of available material. DGG (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well-referenced educational article that humanizes chemistry and makes students think about common names and the utility of naming standards. Regarding POV, anyone familiar with chemistry nomenclature can gauge "unusual" with good accuracy. --Kkmurray (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the reasons given by both DGG and Kkmurray. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the interesting and unusual names for things were one of what got me interested in chemistry as a child, this article could be entirely encyclopedic with a bit of cleaning up. Meodipt (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:LISTS and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:V, the fact "unusual" can actually be defined in a system with standard nomenclature, and arguments by DGG and Kkmurray. Orderinchaos 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is fine as popularization of chemistry.Biophys (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. IUPAC nomenclature is misunderstood by many outside the work and unusual, though seemingly subjective, may actually be the most encyclopedic term. The subject is notable and sourceable so the rest seems to be clean-up. Rather than any re-naming I suggest more simplified clarity of the lede to spell out that sometimes these are accidental and other times they are quite intentional. Also the list should likely spell out why reliable sources think these names are unusual as we write for a variety of readers who may not understand what is considered peculiar. -- Banjeboi 10:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At first I was thinking it was OR, but now I see that "unusual" actually means something objective in terms of chemical names, as Benjiboi illustrates above. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The word 'unusual' is only as confusing and ambiguous as the word 'celebrity'. — neuro^(talk) 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of these compounds are notable enough to have their own articles, this is a neet list to keep them. Just like the list of pokemon based on their "Pokedex number" this is a useful way to keep them.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About half already have articles and I do not see them being deleted. There is plenty of notability here. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:49, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TSTL[edit]

Programming language which doesn't appear to be remarkable. TheAE talk/sign 20:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just for note, it's a programming library (for C++), not a language. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable open-source project. decltype 20:28, 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 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gyorgy Bp.Szabo[edit]

Blatant autobio. Is the guy notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I don't see how. The article is completely unreferenced (the Hungarian version is worse) and I have been unable to find anything substantiating the claims via Google News. There are mentions on blogs, but nothing that looked substantial or authoritative. The first show, for instance, in the Klasky Csupo Gallery, I cannot verify--I can't even verify the gallery, barely its existence via mentions in other bios and announcements. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac "Tub-O" Deitz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Isaac "Tub-O" Deitz

Creator of YouTube videos. Marked lack of independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is the 88th Most Subscribed Comedian of all time on YouTube and has produced music videos and extremely popular video blogs for various high-profile artists. What gives? He has countless people subscribed to him, and his Really Real Shows helped contribute to Family Force 5's MySpace success. I beg to differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolgan (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC) — Wolgan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: don't see notability verified by reliable sources. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 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. If anyone wants to merge some more content, please, contact me on my talkpage. Tone 15:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England national football team assistant manager[edit]

I do not believe that the position of assistant manager of the England national football team is notable in and of itself, compared to the position of England national football team manager. I propose that this article be merged into the England manager article. – Pee Jay 19:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 19:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Any relevant details should be included in England national football team manager though I can't see much in there of much use. Peanut4 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peanut4. We should then set our sights on the manager page. Valley2city^‽ 19:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean "set our sights"? – Pee Jay 19:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the above, also, shouldn't the title be plural? Shouldn't the name of the article to be merged to be England national football team managers? Govvy (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was rather hoping to start an RM to get the article moved to List of England national football team managers, in line with the many lists of club managers that we have. – PeeJay 20:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That can be your next move then. :) Govvy (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll do it now. – Pee Jay 20:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hang about, if you feel the article should be merged into England national football team manager, why have you started an AfD? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I tried proposing a merger, but Dweller suggested I start an AfD in order to establish the article's notability. – Pee Jay 20:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:40, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sausage bread[edit]

I tried to prod this but someone removed it. A completely unreferenced short stub likely consisting of mostly original research. Plenty of Google hits for the phrase "sausage bread" but how many refer to what is described in this article? Mike R (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete'~~ Let me get this right-- you take pizza dough, sausage, Mozzarella cheese, and, if you want other ingredients like mushrooms, onions, etc.; you bake it in the oven at 350°, for 25 minutes; and you eat it? I think that just described what we call a "pizza". Mandsford (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mgm. ~~Delete~~ for lack of legs to stand on. And 350 degrees--that seems a bit cold. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it also sounds very much like a Calzone. Redirect there, at best. Geoff ^T ^C 02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When this was at Proposed Deletion, I went looking for sources. I found several recipes for sausage bread. Several of them did not match what is described in this article, and none of them actually said anything concrete about what they were describing other than giving its ingredients. Pages 508–509 of ISBN 9781558322608, to pick one example, make no mention of pizza dough, or of pizza at all. And pages 198–199 of ISBN 9780299179847, whilst mentioning piza dough and mozzarella cheese, just give a recipe and nothing else. No source even confirms the article's claim that this is American. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So much work for nothing. Did you work up an appetite at least? Drmies (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect My first thought when I read the title was that the article was about Sausage rolls. Seems a reasonable redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the redirect suggestions by MgM (sausage roll) and Glane23 (calzone), and UncleG's search that turns up other varieties of combining sausage and bread. I hadn't even considered sausage biscuit and sausage sandwich, and then there's the Polish sausage that many people won't eat without a hot dog bun. Since people are likely to type in "sausage bread" to look for a wide variety of things, maybe this should be a disambiguation page of some sort. Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the article describes is closer to a sausage roll, and it might well be a better redirect--though I wonder if Mgm didn't have a saucijzenbroodje from the HEMA in mind. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. There seem to be a wide variety of closely related recipes out there (and some not so closely related, for instance the Cajun variety described here is apparently entirely different). I don't think we should eliminate sources just because what they describe is slightly different, rather we should perhaps expand the article to encompass all the variations. There are a lot out there, too: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. JulesH (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research, and Keep. All those sources confirm what we're saying-- there are lots of different forms of "sausage bread" -- biscuits, bread machine loaf, the bread ring, pizza (i.e., sausage on top), calzone (sausage inside), etc. Remember, the original article was simply about one way of combining the two items. Clearly, an article can refer to a wide variety of forms for these two ingredients. Mandsford (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would one of you left wingers mind accessing the NY Times archives so we can read these articles [10], [11] on sausage bread? This is a big-time keep. I've never had sausage bread, but it sounds like just the thing, and thankfully there are numerous sources establishing its notability. Oh and I added a recipe for the Jan. 20 NY Times to the article. Their version is a bit high fallutin, but it will have to do. A merge is a reasonable proposition after we keep, expand, improve, and figure out just what we've got.ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, throw in some yeast, bake a little longer, this article has room to grow. Mandsford (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This is not a "pizza". Maybe this is just a variety of Pigs in a blanket, a very traditional UK Christmas food ?
Keep. Term is notable and many sources are available for expanding the page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:48, 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 media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Withdrawn by nominator, non-admin closure. –Capricorn42 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novajidrány[edit]

Article doesn't seem to meet WP:N, and the 'noted' ceramic artisan only turns up two [12] direct matches, one of which is the article itself. KaySL (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since, but correct me if I'm wrong, places are automatically notable. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to my knowledge, Wikipedia has no official position regarding the notability of geographic locations. Please tell me if I'm wrong though. KaySL (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Towns and villages are inherently notable. The Hungarian Wikipedia article has more information. --Oakshade (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ah, I apologise for my hasty AFD nomination then. I'll translate the Hungarian article and add some detail to the article. Would someone with a little more experience do the honours and close this AFD? KaySL (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Keep-per WP:OUTCOMES populated places with legal recognition are notable. Besides, this particular article can be expanded to include its history. –Capricorn42 (talk) 18:43, 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic design[edit]

Article about a clothing company based in a Young Enterprise group from a grammar school. I withheld nominating the company for speedy deletion and instead added a notability tag. However, the article still lacks reliable sources and a claim of notability. The company is not even producing product yet. Without any reliable sources and notability, the article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the op says, the article completely lacks sources and is nowhere near to having a credible claim of notability. The company seems to be a largely amateur start-up whose only real internet presence is on a Facebook profile. KaySL (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent refs, no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by TV ONE (Indonesia)[edit]

Indiscriminate list (WP:IINFO) and non-notable (WP:N). All redlinks bar three that are non-pertinent Davidelit (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a major licensed TV channel, so we would expect most programmes broadcast on it to be notable. The fact that they are redlinks is an indication of our lack of coverage of this part of the world rather than of a lack of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DIR, WP:COI created by employee of TV ONE parent company as such could even be WP:CSD#G11 blatant advertising. Gnan garra 14:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Indonesian stations and programs are not notable. Compare List of programs broadcast by Fox which is notable and not advertising because Fox is American. Benefix (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this supposed to be a serious argument? What exactly makes Indonesian stations and programming any less notable that American? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disclaimer: To me all TV programming is non-notable as I don't have a TV set that works. Is Indonesia still the fifth largest nation in the world by population? It used to be. If this goes, so should the Fox list. Why is American TV more important? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not the TV Times anyway. Peridon (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE. JamesBurns (talk) 01:27, 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 redirect to Chocolat (2000 film). MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aurélien Parent-Koenig[edit]

Delete and redirect to Chocolat (2000 film), fails WP:ENTERTAINER as is only notable for one movie role. Plastikspork (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and set redirect as the actor has recieved a deal of recognition, but all Chocolat (2000 film). The information might be placed there. One might have hoped the actor would have done something more in the intervening 9 years... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:33, 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 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Vietnam[edit]

Company does not appear to meet WP:CORP. I engaged the author of the article in discussion of this point on its talk page, and we do not agree on this point, so I declined the CSD and am nominating here to establish community consensus. The few external references merely confirm the company exists, but notability is not established, or, in my opinion, even asserted. Frank | talk 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Frank | talk 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frank | talk 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sara Vietnam is a Vietnamese company. It is listed at the Hanoi Securities Trading Center, Alacrastore and Bloomberg, notability is certainly not an issue. Perhaps Sara Vietnam lacks the high level of modern sense and engagement with the English-speaking community as does a somewhat similar Vietnamese company, FPT Group, this could contribute to a lack of perceived transparency of the topic and its notability. No matter, it is still a valid corporate stub. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORP is not satisfied. Author seeks to avoid the inevitable consequences of this, without addressing the need. Kudos to User:Frank on his efforts to engage the author. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confusing delete comment. As written, it seems incoherent with regard to this discussion. What specifically are the "inevitable consequences" of WP:CORP not being satisfied? As the author, I can assure you that I am not seeking to avoid the inevitable consequences of not satisfying WP:CORP. But then again, it is difficult to understand what is written. Please explain. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an article doesn't meet the requirements for notability, then it will be deleted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that the commentator and the nominator seem to be engaging in blatant disregard for both the spirit and letter of the law viz WP:CORP. Article Sara Vietnam is no different than articles IBM and General Motors in its assertion of notability. At this time this deletion discussion has degenerated to a schoolyard logic. There is no way for the article to pass this unusual and unreasonable test, perhaps WP:SNOW is in effect. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Accountable, please read WP:AGF and follow what it says. If the subject of the article cannot pass this test, then it should be deleted. The test is neither unusual nor unreasonable, nor does the argument to delete violate either the spirit or the letter of WP:CORP. The difference between IBM and General Motors and Sara Vietnam is that the first two have reliable, third party sources to establish notability, while none have been provided for your article. Provide them and the article will be kept. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google finance, Alacrastore, Hanoi Securities Trading Center are reliable third party sources; in all good faith, isn't that at least true? --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that the addition of primary sources (the only thing the article has right now) does not help satisfy WP:CORP: "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." Drmies (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources, in any language, can be provided to establish notability. I don't need to cite policies, they have been cited and explained here and on the article talk page. Nothing established notability of this company, so until such reliable, independent, third party sources are found (again, they do not have to be in English) the article is subject to deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is http://www.viet-kabu.com/news_d/vietselect/080118020516.html in Japanese, it's to be added to the article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORP specifically says that being publicly traded by itself is not an automatic guarantee of notability; furthermore, I also have been unable to find any coverage (not just significant coverage) in Google News, which is where one would expect a notable traded company to show up. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look for publicly traded companies, you should at first to look in Google Finance and this page is enough to establish notability.Beagel (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CORP: "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE or NASDAQ, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case." Drmies (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret 'stock exchange non-inherent notability' as 'almost completely verified as notable by inclusion on a stock exchange'; but one should also consider the stock exchange itself as there are actually very many minor, regional, unofficial stock exchanges in existence around the world that could be used by an editor in an article; I would think that being listed on something like HASTC or HoSTC would almost be functionally sufficient as one would also be listed at Google, Bloomeberg or Hoover's if one's company were accomplished enough to be listed on such a major exchange. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, I am not arguing about WP:CORP, I just said that Google News is not the only way to establish notability. In addition to the Google Finance I already presented, there is also a number of hits by Google Search, including some quite good ones to be included in this article.Beagel (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think Mr A's interpretation above is a very unusual one. If I read it correctly, it's much like saying that the statement "Apples are not inherently poisonous" can be read as "almost all apples are poisonous". I don't think that's an interpretation that would be widely accepted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual perhaps to one not familiar with company research. Considering the nature of corporate research as a task and a career, I wouldn't say that listed companies are poison apples, I might say that listed companies are like apple pies at the supermarket, and maybe as far as Wikistandards are concerned, small unlisted company articles - here's one: Blue star Elevators (India) Ltd - are like apples on a tree. It's like the difference between Popular Mechanics and Scientific American, as far as original science research would be concerned. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue star Elevators (India) Ltd lacks notability too. It shouldn't be here. There's no encyclopaedic content to it. Wikipedia still isn't a directory. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

! Wow, that was quick! --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....There's different ways of looking at it. One way is "people work"; people work at companies, and there are paychecks. The paychecks are brought home and support families, including children who grow up and go to school and join the economy; the economy produces computers and food and city sidewalks and airplanes. There are many companies producing paychecks and there are definitely many reasons to keep track of them, and something important about the process of company research, if I may use italics, is that the brokerage community (research community) needs to do its job of keeping track of companies without really getting in the way of the paychecks. Obviously this is not an easy situation to maintain, one only need read the news, and the way to deal with company problems is to work for a universal coverage of all the companies; here on the Wikipedia it mostly consists of covering companies listed at stock exchanges. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what Wikipedia seeks to do. Universal coverage isn't going to happen here under current policies, and I'm afraid you'll find it frustrating to be here if you aim for universality. Please do read carefully the relvant policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. There are also helpful folk at WP:EAR whose assistance might be useful. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what would 'universal coverage' consist of? --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability confirmed by Google Finance. [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beagel (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 January 2009

Why not add those "good" hits to the article? I didn't see any. What I saw was no coverage in Google News and only the mention of this company in Google Finance. That's not establishing notability. But if you feel differently, add the sources that you found and that you think are notable--that's more useful to me and others than just saying that they're there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are always standards of work product at Google finance, Wright Reports and others that make it possible to use the listings to some degree of effectiveness in a situation like this. The standards and effectiveness are driven by the concept of providing value to an investor at the end of the information supply chain...the information at Google: Finance: Sara Vietnam JSC should be usable and safe by financial service industry standards. Like peer-review standards, engineering standards, scientific standards, when presented effectively such information provides value to the reader. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm continuing with Vietnam corporate topic articles, I certainly hope everything is in order in regard to notability, assertion of notability, English and foreign-language article references etc, going forward. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, but I don't see how anything is in order--the article has nothing but primary sources. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 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 per WP:SNOW. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Century Bank[edit]

Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them has failed - content not suitable for an encyclopedia BNEnavyseal (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Many reliable sources with which to write an article [14]. Article requires cleanup, not deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep here also--thanks Atmoz for doing some of the work that the (many) authors and editors could/should have done; I've added one of those references from your search to start establishing notability, and edited out some of the spam/peacock language. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Allen Berg[edit]

This biography is not notable and appears to be a memorial to a soldier. The article is unsourced, mainly because the subject is not very notable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's circular reasoning Orange. Non-notable because it's not sourced because it's not notable. The way you wrote it looks like you started out with the assumption it was not notable, rather than checking first. Please reword the nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a shame that so many soldiers die in so many wars, but Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize them. Notability is not established by documenting the soldier's death on the web. Frank | talk 16:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indeed, it's tragic that this man died, but per Frank, and failing to have met any encyclopedic notability, this article doesn't belong. KaySL (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site. JohnCD (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree. As for "established by documenting the soldier's death on the web". A Google search, 22 January 2009, of "Bruce Allen Berg" Vietnam dose show 176 hits. Several mention him in other person’s biographical information in regards to his action during the battle where he was killed. He is also discussed in the book An Enormous Crime "The Definitive Account of American POWs Abandoned in Southeast Asia by Former U.S. Rep Bill Hendon (R-N.C.) and Elizabeth A. Stewart. His death is discuss as the authors belive that Berg may have been a captured persons left behind by US at end of war, not KIA (See 07 Aug 71).
Additionally, There are approximate 587 people listed as being "Recipients of the Silver Star medal" and 1006 people as "Recipients of the Purple Heart medal", most of whom have pages for no other reason then receiving these awards.
FYI: I do not know this person and/or write this page. ARTEST4ECHO | talk 16:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because there are that many other articles existing while not meeting WP:N, doesn't mean it should set a precedent, eg. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The only thing that seems to stand out in this article is the attempt to memorialise Mister Berg, which while understandable is against WP:Memorial. I don't think the fact that he earned a Silver Star and a Purple Heart is reason enough to keep the article. KaySL (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Receiving these awards is enough to establish notability. Not every article about a dead person is a memorial. We have a solid WikiProject Military History that can enlisted to do the referencing required. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please identify the reliable sources which are available for this purpose? Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable sources needed to meet WP:BIO. I don't see any reliable sources in the Google search results above - indeed, many of them appear to be on Wikipedia mirrors. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any reliable sources neither, just mainly name-checks on memorial sites. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This individual was wounded in combat, and his body was never recovered. He has never been properly accounted for. He was initially listed officially as in missing in action, but his status was later changed to killed in action (KIA-BNR) body not recovered. The battle in which this individual fought, was wounded, and either killer or captured by the North Vietnamese Army, has been studied for the last four decades at the U.S. military academies, the U.S. Army War College, and Special Forces of most major nations. The USMC helecopter flight schools have played the audio taped radio transmissions during the battle to pilot trainees for over tirty years. This individual is historically significant and noteworthy in these multiple regards. Also, at least one video game has been made, based upon this battle. There are abundant reliable non-fiction sources for this individual and the battle he was lost in. Loren D. Hagan was awarded the CMH posthumously for attempting to render aide to this individual. Thanks for your interest and objective consideration of enhancing and improving this article. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 50,000 soldiers died in Vietnam. So they all belong in this project? My uncle, who was a Marine sergeant who died in an ambush during the Tet offensive, certainly was as heroic. I'll expect an article on this anonymous and not notable individual. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly assist in drafting an article about your USMC Uncle's Bio, his historic contributions, and his loss, if you're serious. How much information do you have about him? Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, that's not how Wikipedia works, Marlin was showing that Wikipedia demands that an individual needs to be covered in reliable and (independent of subject) sources. Sorry for your loss, but you might instead want to consider writing an article about the battle he was lost in, or the unit he was part of. Obviously these articles would have to follow the same guidelines and can't just be an exercise in dropping Mr Berg's name as many times as possible. I've done this sort of thing before with 2 different articles and would be willing to help you with what's ok for inclusion and what's not. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:54, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Skulduggery Pleasant[edit]

Unnotable list of self-proclaimed "minor" characters from a single novel and one sequel (and only the first appears to have any actual notability itself). It appears individual major character articles were also merged here, but as they are also already well covered in the main novel article, Skulduggery Pleasant, making those merges here rather redundant. Completely unsourced and fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. No significant coverage in any reliable, third party sources, article reads like a fansite with blatantly obvious lack of neutrality and the liberal addition of WP:OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They're not minor characters. I changed the title. I'm also for keeping as there are seven more books coming out and the series is causing something of a sensation. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. The opening paragraph still described them as minor. Apologies. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two books out now. We do not consider future notability when the other possible books are coming out (no guarantee they ever will). Also, they are all still minor characters except the addition of the two mains. Nor, has a single piece of notability been established within the list, and only novel, the first, appears to have any notability at all.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - but only the two Major characters with small sections in each novel article or perhaps have two articles on these main characters. Otherwise a major job of asserting notability would be necessary for this list. Looks very in-universe and has all the hall-marks of fancruft. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again, items can be easily verified and out of universe sections built from reviews. No pressing need to redlink. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though the nominator cites WP:WAF it is ill-applied. Minor characters shouldn't have their own article, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be covered at all. Information of an appropriate length backed up by references is entirely appropriate by this guideline as well as WP:N. It's also impossible to describe fictional characters without resorting at least in part to plot details. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there is nothing here that says the should either. Establish notablility! The book clearly is, the minor character almost certainly are not. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per the nomination. The collected list of these characters isn't notable under the guidelines of WP:N, and nothing can be added to the article that describes the reception of the collected list in the real world. Themfromspace (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM aside, just look at reviews of the books that discuss the characters as a whole for receptin sections. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. Themfromspace (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - N, NOT and PLOT. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It meets or has the potential to meet all of those. best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  You can't be reading the same article I am then. If it "has the potential" you had better get you skates on then and demonstrate this notability to all these character in the article. And that is notability in the real world by the way!. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you do thorough searches you will see that it is not a hoax. That editors took the time to work on this article concerning characters from two books means that it is notable to people in the real world. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a list of minor characters of a single novel and a sequel we are talking about. The characters can be described in the plot summary. Moreover, Skulduggery Pleasant already has a "character" section. In fact what we are dealaing here is nothing more than a refactorisation of the novel's WP:PLOT. No reason to add more characters in the first article. This would put more WP:WEIGHT than it should. A short character section can be added in the second article as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a compromise, than why not merge and redirect to the character section? Moreover, previous discussions on some of these characters closed as keep and keep before being unilaterally merged to this list (see [15] and [16]. Thus, we already have a consensus for separate articles on some of these characters. Now we either restore those articles per those consensuses or we agree here that this list is a compromise. Because these characters appear in multiple novels and can be verified from reliable sources, this list serves a navigational purpose to the other articles on the series. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  If - it should remain it should be trimmed dramatically from the bloat that it now represents, needs to focus more on real world issues and focus on a select number of more major characters. And on the character more than Plot. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 23:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not opposed to that type of editing revision as a reasonable compromise. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Just because those AfDs closed as keep does NOT mean consensus can't change. Obviously, LATER consensus agreed to a merge here (and those were also non-admin closures with little traffic) and none of the issues actually addressed at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus as far as I could see agreed with the merge here; it appears that TTN just did that in spite of the closes to keep at AfD and he did so without also adding the references that were in the articles. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That none of the primary editors disagreed with the merges is the same as agreeing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where they opposed these merges and if they did not oppose these merges then surely they do oppose deleting the merge location as I cannot imagine anyone saying, "Merge to here, but then delete that place". Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although i don't agree with the some of the other keep comments. Consensus can change--indeed, I hope it is changing to unambiguous keeps on combination articles, which represent the obvious compromise way of handling minor characters. I can understand why someone would want to delete some articles on individual characters, though usually don't agree, but i totally do not understand the virtue of deleting those. I think, in fact, it shows an unwillingness to compromise. This sort of list is the way to deal with not the major characters, but the minor ones; the major ones should have articles of their own. I'd say that almost all the characters presently on the list should be included; the relative importance of the character has already been considered to a certain degree. The sections should furthermore deal at least as much with their role in the fiction as any RW significance. The significance of fiction is as fiction, and fictional characters as characters in fiction. That's a good deal of what people come here to find out about--and rightly so, for a modern comprehensive encyclopedia should cover this fully. Not to the level of a fan wiki, not background characters without a role, but coverage in proportion to the importance. The plot of a fiction, is composed of the actions of the characters. I find for many of these fictions that the character articles give a better account of the plot than the actual articles on the plot; they're more understandable units. DGG (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that for every book in this planet we should have a list of its characters and treated differently from its book summary/plot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't for every book, but for instances such as this where it's a list of characters for a series, it does serve a navigational function as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry, but this seems like an acceptable spin-off article from the main article(s) with a paragraph or so for each, or each type, of character. This is exactly what good editing does when multiple characters span multiple titles. Otherwise each main article would need to summarize character development from the last title. Lists of characters from... articles are quite helpful in this regard. It centralizes and summarizes to help keep fictional elements from bloating and digressing. This seems an ideal and thoughtful way to organize this content. -- Banjeboi 09:32, 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. Tone 15:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristover Burke[edit]

Almost certain to be a spoof, as explained on the article's talk page. No independent online sources to confirm existence, outrageous claims of ownership up to 1967 of the Bank of Sweden (Parliament-owned since 1668!) and highly unlikely claim of 1967 purchase of Saab, which was Wallenberg-controlled at the time of its fusion into Saab-Scania in 1969. Tomas e (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious hoax, per nom. and talk page. Author SumSum4 (talk · contribs) has no other edits apart from an attempt, along with an IP which was no doubt him, to insert this nonsense into Saab. A pity whoever cleared it out of that article didn't zap this at the same time - it's been lurking for well over a year. JohnCD (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious hoax. No refs on this Sólyomszem (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:28, 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 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naked and Funny[edit]

No sources cited at deletion and still no sources after re-creation. Wikipedia is not a directory of obscure foreign TV shows or anything else. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure, non-notable, sourceless. Virtually speedy-deserving. KaySL (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure what being "foreign" has to do with deletion. Here are a couple of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE - I agree, the fact that the show is a foreign one should have absolutely no bearing on this discussion, but rather the fact that it's obscure and non-notable as I said above. KaySL (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two citations to reliable sources have been added to the article, one in Russian and one in English, which constitutes "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". DHowell (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - per WP:N,WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources in article meet WP:GNG. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 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 delete. Tone 15:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pascual Candel Palazón[edit]

non-notability of author-vanity fluff piece written by two SPAs which are likely sockpuppets of the author, and who removed properly placed speedy tags, so I am going through AfD. NN COI Vanispamicruft Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely that they're sockpuppets of the OC, but yes, the subject is non-notable and the language sensationalistic in places. KaySL (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons plus quite POV sounding. Valley2city^‽ 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The books are self published via lulu.com and none of the ISBNs are listed by Worldcat. Google searches find nothing remotely resembling a reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:00, 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} 00:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Najla Said[edit]

WP:BLP with multiple issues of verifiability, sourcing and promotional language for some months, never fixed, no revision free of these problems. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is arguably not that notable, and the tone of the article is indeed inappropriate and promotional. KaySL (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - given the new sources. KaySL (talk) 22:43, 23 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]
Keep The Seattle Times, New York Times and others have written articles about, or largely about her. Current article may suck, but that's not (yet) a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, I guess the NYT one is pretty much a passing mention. Other two are good though. Hobit (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Hobit. The sources seem to show notability to me (while they're about shows this actress has appeared in, they do go into some detail about her, so I would say rise above trivial). WP:DELETION does not suggest deleting articles that can be fixed by editing, which this one could be. JulesH (talk) 19:58, 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 00:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santeria (band)[edit]

I would have speedied it, but this does try and assert notability. However, it fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:RS. Non notable band. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC miserably. Yet to even release an album. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 19:47, 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. Tone 22:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Ryan[edit]

Non-notable author whose first book has yet to be published. Fails WP:CREATIVE. See also Sarah Cross from the same SPA. JohnCD (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 19:48, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have U Seen Her[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly a great deal of misinformation here as it says this song will be the first single from an album and yet the now-released album doesn't even contain the track. It's been blanked a couple of times, once by User:Souljaboyandrew who seems to be a bit of a T-Pain expert. As the article is totally unreferenced none of it can be shown to be correct and at least some of it is demonstably incorrect - Delete. Ros0709 (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, per WP:MUSIC. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T^C 03:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: It also appears to be a hoax. T-Pain never released this as a single nor does it show up on any of his albums. JamesBurns (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this doesn't appear to be real. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ofira Air Battle[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion befroe, but this tag was removed, and an effort was made to bring more sources and add more information to the article. However, the same problems remain. These are:

One Last Pharoah had stated reasons as to why the battle is illogical.
Saad El Shazly, the Egyptian Chief of Staff, said that total Egyptian losses upto 0800 on October 7 were only 5 aircraft. Several other Egyptian sources also mention the same thing.
El-Gammasy, the Egyptian Chief of Operations, shows that the three airbases targeted in the airstrike on October 6 were: Meleez, Bir Thamada, and Ras Sidr airfields, since they were all in near to the Suez Canal and the actual area of combat. A book by three Egyptian officers who were in Egyptian General HQ during the war also says the same thing.

Hence, we can see that the Egyptians never even attacked Ofira Air Base. We can also see that the 7 Egyptian losses mentioned in the Ofira Air Battle contradict several highly reliable Egyptian sources. Also and most importantly, this battle has no historic value whatsoever. It did not have any effect on the war as a whole. Sherif9282 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The first AfD discussion can be seen here. -- Nudve (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources already cited in the article, the talk page and the previous AFD, here are two others: this source mentions the battle (p. 56), and this one says the Ofira airbase (transliterated here as "Ophira") was attacked. The fact that it is not mentioned by the Egyptian Generals is interesting and arguably noteworthy, but not a proof that all of the other sources are fabrications. About the notability issue, I agree that this was a relatively minor battle in the greater scheme of the war, but I think it has received enough coverage to meet WP:N and WP:MILMOS#NOTE. An IP commented on the talk page that this battle may have been featured in dogfights, but I can't verify that. -- Nudve (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source mentions that the Egyptian also attacked the Bir Gifgafa, Al Arish, Ras Nasrani and Aqaba airfields. Another Egyptian source includes only Ras Nasrani as a target in addtition to the Bir Thamada, Ras Sudr and Meleez. The EAF did not go as far as to attack the Arish and Akaba airfields (I presume the latter is close to the Jordanian city of Aqaba), and there is no mention of attacking Bir Gifgafa. Also, that source contradicts what is written in the Yom Kippur War article as well. It states that the EAF had 570 combat aircraft, when the real number was 400, based on the Egyptian Chief of Staff. It's not possible that a dogfight which resulted in 7 destroyed MiGs could take place in 6 minutes. Not only does the battle have no mention among Egyptian commanders, but it also contradicts the casualty count as well. Besides, WP:MILMOS#NOTE is not a policy/guideline but an opinion/advice. Sherif9282 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is easily possible to have downed 7 MiGs in 6 minutes, depends on the engagement geometry. Flight time of an AAM can be measured in seconds. Justin talk 20:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really am busy in the real life but any way You can assume that i agree with Sherif. A small comment: I did not see all DOGFIGHTS series, but i did not find the battle in the wikipedia article supposedly covering all of the series; How can i be featured, when it is not even there? One last pharaoh (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No new arguments for deletion have been produced since the last AfD failed, and in the meantime, the article has been improved with additional reliable sources. The nomination seems to be based on the fact the the nominator's original research is at odds with what reliable sources have reported about the event - but that is not a valid reason to delete. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I supported deletion in the past and at the last AfD, but, as Canadian Monkey notes, the article has clearly improved since then. There may still be some issues, but I am now satisfied that notability is established.--Kubigula (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this source, written by Dr. George W. Gawrych, notes that Egyptian losses upto October 7 included 15 planes, citing Shazli and Gamasy as references. However, there must have been a typing mistake; I double-checked both sources, and they only mention losses of 5 aircraft. The figures on the article contradict the figures given by these sources. So you can see the nomination was not based on original research. Sherif9282 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
writing "I double-checked both sources, and...the figures on the article contradict the figures given by these sources." is a pretty clear indication of original research. The source says 15, you claim it's a typo based on your original research. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I claimed its a typo based on the references and page numbers which Gawrych cited. The 280 killed and 20 tanks lost corresponded to the losses he cited from Shazly and Gamasy, but not the losses in aircraft. The only possible reason for this is that it was a typo. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you feel unsourced information in the article is false then remove it. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable but like all articles could stand some improvement. Greenshed (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Ryan4314 isn't aware what's going on here. Sherif9282 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try Sherif, but the reason you have given on my talk page is not a valid reason for deletion, I would instead perform an WP:RFC over the matter or some such. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't see any new arguments for deletion and the pro-deletion arguments based upon WP:OR. Justin talk 20:26, 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 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LAPSA[edit]

The article was submitted for CSD, but it claims the group committed multiple big hacks (--> notability claimed). Since none of the references are reliable (the mentioned interviews aren't published), this is not verifiable; Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable by lack of reliable sources, probable pure vanity. Not sure if claiming major hacks should qualify under a group's "major accomplishments" for notability purposes, but still, doesn't appear to be any way to substantiate. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Nothing notable or verifiable here.--J.Mundo (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot (Internet)[edit]

Nonnotable neologism. This article about an internet slang term contains no references for verification, and my searches, such as this have turned up no reliable sources. The subject fails the general notability guidelines as well as the notability guidelines for web-related material. Themfromspace (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also unable to find any reason why this should stay. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:WINAD and WP:NEO. If we had any sources for this, I'd say punt it to Wiktionary, but we don't and I can't find any either. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 19:50, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Brother Henry[edit]

Written in uncyclopedic way. Is this a book? Hard to tell. No assertion of notability [17] DFS454 (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete purely because there's no assertion of notability. (The nominator's other remarks are true, but they're grounds for editing, not deletion.)--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a short story/essay in J.M. Barrie's My Lady Nicotine (see Project Gutenberg). Unfortunately, the larger work this is in has no article or I'd have redirected or merged in a jiffy. I think the subject qualifies under the criterion that some artists are so notable that their works are inherently notable. I wouldn't hesitate to put Barrie in the same company as Dickens and Kipling to name just a few. The article is merely a rehash of the plot and not an encyclopedic article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know if the short story is worth an article, but this isn't it - no sources, reads like a personal essay or original research. JohnCD (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think it meets the "author is so famous; all his work should be covered"-criterion? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might fit that criteria, but there is no info about what WP:BK means by a historically significant author so I always ignore that criteria. Schuym1 (talk) 00:04, 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. G10, attack page. Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Sentheesan[edit]

Non-notable neoglism No results on Google. DFS454 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly a feeble attempt at an attack on someone called Sentheesan who is known to the article's creator. Surely we can speedy this under some criterion or other? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 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 Poschiavo. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Via da Mez[edit]

Routine nom, author contested prod. Prod reason was: A street in a town of just 3. 652 peoples, Just not notable. The Rolling Camel (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Poschiavo. It's worth a mention, but there's not sufficient material to carry an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per MGM. KaySL (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Mgm said. Punkmorten (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - a redirect sounds good, since the street name would be a plausible search term. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 14:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to place article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 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 keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeituni Onyango[edit]

AfDs for this article:

First off I want to say this is a well-written, well-researched article, and certainly passes most of Wikipedia's policies, including the ones on verifiability. But does it pass the biography policy? What has this poor woman done intentionally to gain press attention? It seems she was only a passing press target for a few weeks because she is a relation of the new US president. She does not pass the standards for inclusion nor the decency standard imposed by BLP. She is not inherently notable, there are 12 million illegal aliens living in the US. Nor is the fact she is the president's aunt inherently notable, how many people can name President Bush's aunt's name? In fact, she would be in absolute obscurity were the press not to muckrake her name and story up... in other words the mass amount of press coverage is misleading, and we do not need a full fledged biography when a simple redirect to Family of Barack Obama would suffice. -Nard 09:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not convinced that WP:ONEEVENT applies here, as there seems to be no individual event that has been covered by the press. She is notable both for being a relative of Barack Obama and due to the controversy surrounding her immigration status. Both should be dealt with, and while the former could be merged to Family of Barack Obama the latter cannot, and while the latter can be covered in an article about the immigration controversy the former couldn't. Both should be treated together as both are about the same person. I think, therefore, that the relevant rule is WP:NPF, i.e. the article should be kept but we should ensure that no details are included that are not directly relevant to either of the reasons this person can be considered notable. JulesH (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per JulesH. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Given that the subject has had plenty of non-trivial coverage from 3rd party sources, over an extended period of time, its pretty clear to me that she passes the notability guidelines. 16:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbralcorax (talk • contribs)
Keep per the very good arguments by JulesH Hobit (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this has survived several afds due to no consensus and the nomination looks like WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED to me. Consensus can change, but give it more time.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of the topic includes Associated Press The New York Times and thousands of others. Also note the worldwide coverage of the topic. [18] [19] Hobartimus (talk) 00:13, 23 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]
Keep She has several accomplishments of her own, and she is part of "America's most fascinating famous family." President Obama's entire family is noteworthy because of its diversity and geographic extent. She was mentioned in a very well-known, highly relevant bestseller book, Dreams of My Father, that is noteworthy in and of itself because it helped Barack Obama to pay off his student loans. She is part of the reason why the book sold so well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.236.15 (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What exactly is "the decency standard imposed by BLP"? Do you mean Onyango's decency? I don't believe Wikipedia has a decency requirement for a person to have an article. Ward3001 (talk) 04:09, 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 00:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bus routes in Thurrock[edit]

Non-notable list of bus routes. WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of info. Delete Exxolon (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of bus routes in Essex. I believe there's been consensus in the past to keep county pages and those for major cities. I'm not wholly convinced Thurrock qualifies. JulesH (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 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. This difficulty is demonstrated by the list above the table. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable and unnotable. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, WP:RS, and WP:CORP --Triadian (talk) 21:14, 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) — neuro^(talk) 10:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PKR.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - previous AFD closed keep for some unfathomable reason. There are no independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of this site. The previous AFD included several opinions regarding particular features of the site. This is not the standard of notability. Notability requires independent reliable sources that cover the subject in a substantive fashion. Press release-type mentions and single-line mentions in books do not meet our requirements. Otto4711 (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: who cares about it? Alexius08 (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The keep close of the previous AFD means that this article cannot be speedy deleted according to WP:CSD. JulesH (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The eGaming Review award ("Hotshot operator of the year"[20]) seems to suggest notability. I'm assuming that their print magazine contained more information about why they won the award than just this single line mention). Also, I'm not entirely sure that a single-line mention is always "trivial". If what that line says is clearly important, then I believe it wouldn't be. However, I don't know what the line in question is, as I don't have a copy of the book in question (see previous AFD) and google books has preview disabled. JulesH (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N. Note that "won an award" is not a criterion that establishes notability. Notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Otto4711 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. While I believe that this site deserves an article (it's the first online poker game in 3D), I'm not particularly happy with the current one. It sounds like a POVish advert. I'm hoping someone can save this with a rewrite (I'll offer a barnstar to whoever can make a DYK-worthy article out of this. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite as per above, the article is written in an unencyclopedic tone, but given its notibility as the first online poker game to feature 3D graphics, it does deserve to remain. KaySL (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No topic "deserves" an article. Wikipedia articles are not some prize that we dole out based on how worthy some topic supposedly is. Wikipedia articles are for topics that are notable, meaning that they have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That this site was the first to feature 3D graphics does not make it notable, unless the site received significant coverage in reliable sources. Let's see the significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, let's. And I clearly didn't mean to imply that articles are like prizes to be shelled out as you said, merely that this one seems to satisfy notability requirements as far as I see. Yes, more sources are needed, but we shouldn't just trash an article instead of improving it. Sorry if I misinterpreted your tone, by the way. Cheers. KaySL (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up the article and added 6 references establishing notability per WP:WEB. Keep. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 15:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions do not equal notability. That PKR.com is mentioned in a news story about the online poker bubble supposedly bursting does not confer notability to PKR.com. The ranking of the site on Alexa does not make it notable. A couple of paragraphs on a site which has partnered with PKR.com to offer a bonus does not establish notability. Once again, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Based on the re-write, notability seems to be established. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, which of the sources establish notability per WP:N? Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Notability is not an issue here: "January 4 2009 the poker site recorded 40 000 new registrations, bringing the total player base to 2.4 million, 1 and Google News Search. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes RecentPoker.com a reliable source? Where in WP:N do we find "a website has a lot of members" as establishing notability? Otto4711 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obviously notable in reliable source. 2005 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, AGF here. I am sure the nom AFD'd the article in good faith. MuZemike 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please. Nom said previous keep was "unfathomable". Obviously when being so over the top there is a greater burden on a nominator. It took less than 15 seconds to find a reliable source. 2005 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made to the article by Linguist. Good work! MuZemike 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the "references" that meet WP:N are...? Any of them? No? Oh. It's very simple to go "keep, look at all the sources" but apparently when challenged on the sources it's not so easy. Nice to see so much thought put into a decision. Otto4711 (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, clearly attacked on both sides of the debate; that's a first. Maybe I should think twice about commenting at an AFD next time. NOT! MuZemike 08:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, enough reliable sources provide significant coverage to establish notability of this website, and that's only from looking that the current references. Anyways, 2005, you got your stupid keep !vote from me; what more do you want? MuZemike 08:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has at least three reliable sources (Times Online, Forbes and the award given) thus meeting WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 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 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davey Strehler[edit]

Band member of a band without an album yet. Bulk of article is a copy of a press release issued by the band from its MySpace page. As far as I could see, the press release was not covered by Kerrang, as the article claims, though I could be wrong. —BillC ^talk 07:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ——BillC ^talk 07:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no coverage of the band, let alone its frontman, anywhere reliable. Spelling errors in the quoted text claimed to be from Kerrang (that are also present in the press release) strongly suggest it is not from an official Kerrang publication. Those guys have some standards, and misspelling the title of one of the Beatles' most popular songs is unlikely to get past them. JulesH (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, this band has appeared in multiple magazines such as metal hammer, skope, kerrang and many more. There song "one last time." is streaming in multiple radio stations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.249.59 (talk • contribs)
Delete: no significant independent 3rd party coverage - Google shows mostly myspace, youtube, and blogs. JamesBurns (talk) 07:14, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Hell (film)[edit]

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found. Closing admin please WP:Userfy back to author. Perhaps when this is released it will get coverage. As it is, title makes a search near impossible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "unless sources can be found? Take 10 seconds and look for yourself! IMDB and others! How could you vote delete? 'KEEP Geĸrίtzl (talk)

I was refering to more than it being listed in dozens of databases that I found as I myself expanded and sourced the article in an attempt to save it, prior to you have added more filler. We have absolutely no doubt that the film exists. Listing the entire cast does not show notability. It simply being listed in these databases does not confer notability. It being listed on IMDB and others means it exists... not that it is notable. Can you point to some reviews? That would be a major step in showing notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's goal is stated as follows: "The goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available...". Are we running out of disk space on Wikipiedia?? Geĸrίtzl (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the stated goal of the missing encyclopaedia articles WikiProject not Wikipedia as a whole. Guest9999 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NFF standards. The first three links for the cast do not link to the actors in the film. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. Noted actors and pundits (e.g. Christopher Hitchens are in the movie. Meets ALL WP:NFF standards. (Sorry, didn't sign my post): Geĸrίtzl (talk)

With respects, it needs coverage, not simply listings, in sources independent of the subject. I'd like it to stay... I really really would... but it needs reviews and writeups, even if only in conjunction with its cast. The prodeucers need to get some screener copies out for review. That would be a great help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep plain and simple, no serious article that isn't already an article should be deleted. It should be improved and not deleted. --Skyler :^| 02:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like that to be true... I really would. And I tried my best to improve it. But I looked for the sources required to show notability and they are not currently available. This is why I suggested the article be returned to the author... as it is premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal ball prediction/advert about a film with no verifiable references to assert notability to be found. Themfromspace (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respects... WP:CRYSTAL does not apply as the film can be verified to have completed filming. WP:ADVERT does not apply, as the article has been cleaned and formatted per film MOS to renove any COI or ADVERT. That leaves WP:NFF... which it fails because notability itself cannot be sourced for this unreleased and unreviewed film. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The crystal ball is what predicts notability. The notability of the subject can't be assertained until after the film is released. Thats when independant analysis of the film can be done. Themfromspace (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You spelled ascertained wrong.
Actually, current guidelines state that the film is allowed to exist on wikipedia only when filming begins: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." I disagree, but this is no the place to question the irrational rule. Please double check current policy before making comments on the deletion of other editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the second paragraph of WP:NFF says that it needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources. "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." Schuym1 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Unfortunately, punitive current guidelines only allow for this option. Keep recent edits have shown that the article is notable, and that it is not a hoax. Ikip (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind clarifying which of the recent edits you believe show the film to be notable? Guest9999 (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the film lacks the coverage by reliable, independent sources which would establish its notability. From the information available I don't think that even a basic stub would be sustainable. Guest9999 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy on notability says that "notable" is defined as "worthy of being noted" -- with one of the people in the movie, Christopher Hitchens, being voted among the "The 25 most influential liberals in U.S. media" according to Forbes,[21] ANY movie he is in, even a failed one, is worthy of note. The reasons given so far are like saying an article on a failed Bogart movie is not notable; and that would be wrong. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He isn't an actor, he's an author. You're claiming that just because he is a notable author than any visual media he appears in (even when we do not know the extent of his appearance...it could very well be a cameo) is automatically notable? Well, first notability is not inhereted, and second by that logic if Bill Gates were to graciously appear in some random, fan-made, never-to-see-the-light-of-day film, that that film is automatically notable? I don't think so. The film must stand on its own merits, it cannot suck the notability life from others and believe that it will be able to warrant an article by itself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not move any relevant, verifiable information into the Christopher Hitchens article? Guest9999 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because the movie, as far as I can tell, is not about Christopher Hitchens. Based on the text, he only "appears" (which I assume means it's a cameo), and thus the only thing that would need to be presented on his page would be a single line saying "He made a cameo in Holy Hell" - and even then some might argue that it was a trivial mentioned (which isn't for us to decide here, we're talking about whether this film should have an article, and based on the fact that there is no significant coverage of the film, and that there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources confirming that the film will even get made/released...it does not warrant a separate article). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree! WP:NF is not a stable policy; users have been modifying it to the point where it is in direct contradiction to Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia - "to compile the sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia." That goal trumps any current version of WP:NF. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, notability guidelines trump empty statements like compiling the sum of human knowledge. Not everything belongs here you know. That's what the notability guidelines are for, they weed out what doesn't belong. Themfromspace (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, you are wrong. "To compile the sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia." represents the Prime Directive and not an "empty statement", all other guidelines being subordinate. And unfortuanately, subordinate guidelines are always in flux. Geĸrίtzl (talk)

Excuse me, you are wrong. Per the fact that this is an encylopedia and encyclopedias are only for notable topics and there is a long established concensus that guidelines shouldn't be ignored. Schuym1 (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping this article get kept because your opinions go against guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement has - in my opinion incorrectly - been in Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, for a little over three months. WP:NFF and its provisions have existed for well over a year. Guest9999 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator This article has been edited significantly since the article has been put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? It still doesn't meet WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFF, only lists IMDb (which itself fails reliable sources. The fact that Forbes talks about Christopher Hitchens is neither here nor there. Per WP:NFF, if the film has yet to be released then the production itself must be notable (no production actually on this film listed, only 2 IMDb sources that apparently do nothing more than give us a plot summary (since those are submitted by users, cannot really be sure it is accurate), and a supposed cast listing. Even if it didn't fail WP:NFF, it still fails WP:NOTE and WP:CRYSTAL (sorry, IMDb suggesting it will be released in 2009 at some point does not mean that it will). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and keep deleted until there's something we can say about it beyond 'it exists'. Per WP:NFF, articles about films yet to be released should generally be avoided (except where the production itself has achieved notability) as there's very little to say about them, and this article seems to be a perfect example of that. Terraxos (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION - if the article is deleted then the subject film becomes notable, if I try to restore it I will get a warning: Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted. Is there a way to get around this? Thanks Geĸrίtzl (talk)
- You get a warning, but I don't think it actually inhibits you from creating the page (not positive, so don't quote me). In these situations, it is sometimes best to create the page in your user space (User:Gekritzl/Sandbox), and then maybe come to the film community page and request input on whether or not there is belief that the information should have an article devoted to it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:17, 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 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Investigations Unit: Part One[edit]

No notability asserted, and explicitly fails future film notability guideline. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incomplete film; production company unknown; actors do not seem to be notable (one of them turns up in google as author of a book, the other doesn't seem to turn up in google at all); production company named after the main actors... chances are this is just somebody's personal project. JulesH (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. WWGB (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:USERFY back to author User:Samuel 09. If/when it gains notability, he might then bring it back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Samuel 09 has replied on my talk page. I copy his reply below for convenience. JulesH (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete film

That is because the film is currently in production and being filmed.

actors do not seem to be notable (one of them turns up in google as author of a book, the other doesn't seem to turn up in google) at all

GOOGLE DOES NOT HAVE EVERYTHING ON EVERYONE, Are you on Google? If you type Galactic Investigations Unit: Part One into Google, you will find that GIU is one of the first Articles.

production company named after the main actors

So. You going to go after Jerry Bruckheimer next?

chances are this is just somebody's personal project

This "personal project" if you bothered to look at the external link, is actually an Australian Film Commision Film, financed by the Australian Film Commision.

You may want to double-check your information instead of going around and asking for stuff to be deleted unless you have the correct information.

Samuel 09 (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Samuael 09[reply]

My reply: no, you won't find me on google. But then I'm not notable, and have multiple namesakes who are. Google isn't a guarantee of notability, but for people like actors, writers and film producers it's a pretty good guide. I'm not aware that Bruckheimer has starred in any of the films he's produced. IMDB isn't, either. The external link does not state that the film was financed by the AFC. It is a link to a database run by the AFC, but it aims to be a complete database of all films produced in Australia, and doesn't include any information about financing. JulesH (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply: Pretty Good Guide isn't good enough.

I'm not aware that Bruckheimer has starred in any of the films he's produced

Hasn't got anything to do with it really.

I know that the Movie is going ahead and going to be released in Australia, so if you want to delete it, that's up to you. Just don't be dissapointed when you see the Release of "GIU" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel 09 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 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 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Cred[edit]

WP:NOTDICT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide.
WP:NOR, Appears to be a new phrase and might be Original Research.
Lacks sufficient Reliable Sources, only 1 article is linked -GateKeeper^(X) @ 06:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: I found this [22] article that says this term was "accepted by Wikipedia," I guess we'll want to call them back if this gets deleted... Beeblebrox (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so sorry to disappoint Follis, but he's gonna look really foolish in five days... JuJube (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - surprised this stuck around for so long. This certainly appears to be an OR neologism which has failed to catch on. Usrnme h8er (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this won't even survive Wiktionary. Alexius08 (talk) 08:53, 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 00:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Riska[edit]

[Speedy] Delete: not even close to notable -- a county clerk falls well short of WP:POLITICIAN. Unsuccessful speedy & prod candidate (nominated by two other editors, with the latter being deleted as part of a prod-removal binge by a new a/c), so nominated here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upping recommendation to 'speedy' as sole substantive editor of the article is voting to delete. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to prod it; the prod was removed, but there is no possible notability, and there are no sources. As the article on the country Jackson County, Michigan says, the country government is not of all that much significance altogether. And country clerk is not normally a policy making position. DGG (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reviewed 100% of the hits generated by Google and Google News searches for "Amanda Riska". No significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongo matic 12:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – although I created this article (on August 4, 2008), I see that it doesn't establish enough notability. TheAE talk/sign 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Happened upon this and it definitely should be gone. Sorry Amanda :) FG Fox (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is also not notable that a local politican is active in charities, it would be remarkable if she wasn't. This is the substance of half the article. Redddogg (talk) 05:02, 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, per WP:Speedy keep and considering the nominator's contributions to date. Marasmusine (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance 2[edit]

Not good enough with WP:N, does not have good article quality. --AfDproXX (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High-selling video games from major studios are absolutely notable, and need for cleanup is not a reason for deletion (FWIW, this seems to be a decently-written article at first glance). BryanG (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (if not speedy) keep - Notability clearly demonstrated, trying to see if there's a WP:POINT to this nomination. --MASEM 06:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, advancing to speedy keep when it starts snowing, as this quite likely will.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject ticks all the boxes in regards to WP:N, and then some. ~ NossB (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the abovestated reasons Pirate452 (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game has been reviewed by different sources. The quality of the article is not a valid reason for deletion. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 15:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the snowball clause and that it is good enough with WP:N. Frankly, I have seen articles in worse quality. MuZemike 15:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Ever Keep What the?. What sort of nomination is this. This is most absurd, funny, weird, strange and (anything that fits) AFD nomination. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well-written, sourced article on a notable product. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:05, 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 the first to List of pharmaceutical sciences journals, delete the second. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacology Weekly[edit]

Is this notable? 320 Ghits, doesn't really explain why it is notable. TheAE talk/sign 05:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am nominating this page likewise:

Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources. Alexius08 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I understand the notability argument and I do give due weight to that. However, this is an academic journal. Since Wikipedia is partly a research tool, there are very good reasons why Wikipedia tends to be lenient to academics, scholars, and educational institutions when it comes to notability. So I'm mildly leaning towards keep.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: wholly unsourced and offering no indication that third party sourcing may become available. In response to S Marshall's "this is an academic journal" argument, I will simply quote WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is no reason to believe that "third-party sources can be found" for either of these journals, so no good reason to retain them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response--it's not for me to provide reasons to retain the article so much as for the delete !votes to demonstrate their case, because where there's no consensus the presumption is in favour of keep. The question before us is the nominator's "Is this notable?" (since "320 google hits" carries no weight). My response is that this is the kind of peer-reviewed academic journal that would, in other AFD's, serve as a reliable source. But as I said, I do respect the WP:GNG. It would be nice to have a view from an expert in pharmacology if possible, and I'll tag the article for expert attention.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that I find this to be a confusing response. (i) While the nominator may only have had a WP:GOOGLEHITS rationale, Alexius08's clearly had a basis in WP:GNG -- therefore a 'no valid reason given to delete so let's keep' view is not supported. (ii) WP:RS != WP:NOTE (so the fact that it "would, in other AFD's, serve as a reliable source" would appear to be irrelevant). (iii) I'm not sure that an 'expert' would add anything -- as even if they state 'it's a really really important journal', we are still left with the lack of third party sources which (1) is the actual criteria (and is backed by WP:V) & (2) is what is actually needed to form the basis of a halfway decent article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that was confusing. My position is that I do see the notability argument, and I do give it due weight; but I'm afraid I still feel a peer-reviewed academic journal is the kind of thing that merits a wikipedia article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep:. I am a health care professional and subscribe to this newsletter. The information provided is of high quality and well referenced with links to PubMed. This article in Wikipedia is also very similar to an already approved one called Medical Letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srutherf09 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a healthcare professional, I felt that posting factual and publically known information about this company would be beneficial to other people wanting to do research on medical education companies offering such services. Pharmacology Weekly is very similar to the other online medical education companies offering newsletter services (for example the Medical Letter which is also found in Wikipedia; Journal Watch & Treatment Guidelines….etc). However, this service is sent to health care providers versus people coming to the site. Therefore, for someone looking to learn about companies who offer this needed service may be able to find Wikipedia a good source for reviewing simple objective information about those companies. I will say that like, the Medical Letter, Pharmacology Weekly is technically not a medical journal – it appears that someone made an edit suggesting it this. It is a company that provides an electronic medical newsletter service to medical professionals. However, the material contained in the newsletters is peer reviewed by licensed healthcare professionals and is fully referenced with reputable sources of information for the purpose of educating healthcare professionals about pharmacology. Therefore, I feel like this information about this company can be useful for those doing research on medical education companies, no different than other companies who also have information posted about them on Wikipedia.--GeneRx (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's notable because its a listed peer-review journal. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to delete, with apologies. Now it's become clear this is a commercial newsletter service rather than an academic journal, I no longer see any reason to be lenient with the GNG.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:52, 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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Tin Man[edit]

Unnotable list of secondary characters from a mini series, with almost all being nothing but minor characters. Nothing but a complete repeat of the series plot, with WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues all over the place. Role of semi-major characters, such as Raw, already properly covered in the mini-series plot. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. Additionally, consensus has shown that film articles should generally not have character lists except for serial works, which this is not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gotta agree with the nom on this one. 100% plot summary, and just a bunch of character-specific rehashes of the summary that's already present in the main article, which already needs trimming. I've been involved with the Tin Man-related articles for going on a year, and haven't seen any reliable third-party sources that would attest to notability of any of these characters. Not surprising for a miniseries that's only 3 episodes long. Hence nothing worth saving or merging, and the title (as a "list of..." title) is an unlikely search term, so delete. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's solid argument. I do not see this list of secondary characters ever possessing primarily real-world context with plot detail only complementing as necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Relevant and interesting article on characters from a successful miniseries. We have a list of characters from Titanic which despite being the second most successful film ever made was actually just a one off film. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ← Note: This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion that the article is "relevant and interesting" does not hold up against the policies and guidelines quoted by the nominator. In addition, we don't point to other parts of Wikipedia to support this part of Wikipedia, saying "Other stuff exists," for they may disregard policies and guidelines as well. An article must comply with them, and any similarly existing articles must comply as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hit them one at a time. WP:PLOT is not thought by anyone who discusses it regularly (see the talk page of WP:NOT) to be a reason to delete. WP:WAF actually encourages spinout articles when appropriate. WP:NOR/WP:OR are reasons to clean up, not to delete. We are left with WP:N and the issue of spinout articles. That is largely unsettled still, but a single list of characters is very rarely contested. After the other articles, nominated at the same time, tell us to merge to this article, what do we do?Hobit (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The miniseries article is very sparse, so there is zero basis to argue about spinning out sub-articles. This list is an indiscriminate collection of information. All these secondary characters from a miniseries do not deserve this level of inane detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the sparse so the spinout may not be justified. But that would be a merge back, not a delete. However inane and deserves in this context seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge with Tin_Man_(TV_miniseries), surely.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got curious and checked the article history since I had vague memories of it having a section long ago. And it did. It was gutted without remark or reason on June 22, 2008.[23] by a user now known to be a sockpuppet. Curious as to why no one undid his edit? :-( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I imagine it was because there was no reason for the lengthy character details in the article on account of the other articles existences. I should imagine it was because they made the article unnecessarily long. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ← Note: This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, it was a "good thing" but notice his gutting also removed several sources from the article, which it sorely needed (and oh, still does). Nor was the article "unnecessarily long" it was too plotty (and still is), so the issue wasn't actually addressed at all, just split across a bunch of inappropriate articles. The main article still sucks by all standards, and was reduced to nothing but a table of ratings, a grossly long plot, and a brief list of the cast. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appeared at first glance to be well intentioned but upon further inspection it would seem that it wasn't. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ← Note: This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any reason why this all couldn't be incorporated into the main article and the Casting section re-fleshed-out in this manner or something similar. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but notice that most of those characters are blue links. The characters themselves have been put up for deletion at that same time which I think was a poor choice. I've contacted Colectonian and suggested this one be delayed. She declined. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Strong keep for now List of characters are often good organizationally AND given that the same editor nominated (all?) the main characters, this is an obvious merge target for them. Odds are good that we will end up with mergers from those. After that, feel free to nominate this. But until then you're creating a mess where a bunch of AfDs will likely result in a merger to an article that's been deleted. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since the list is primarily nothing but minor characters, the main characters can be merged just as easily to the main article (also an obvious merge target, and a more appropriate one). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but I think doing one at a time is the wiser and cleaner course. Hobit (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as with the DG character, the items on this list can be verified in numerous reviews and previews, which also provided information for reception and development sections. A case can be made for improvement here, but not for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well-formulated nomination. Eusebeus (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, especially when the nomination has been refuted. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to Tin Man (TV miniseries). This miniseries was substantially reviewed by nearly every major newspaper and many national magazines, so there is no doubt plenty of independent reliable source material to say something independently verifiable about all the characters listed here. Whether it should be said in a separate article or in the main article is a question to be determined on the article's talk pages, not at AfD. DHowell (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of character sis completely appropriate spin-offs of main articles and this seems to be within an acceptable level not making any outrageous claims or overly gushy. It needs cleaning up and more real-world relevance but those aren't deletion concerns. Per AfD - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. -- Banjeboi 09:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit. If there was enough interest to create a dozen pages we should handle this via merges.18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch (character)[edit]

Unnotable character from the television miniseries Tin Man (TV miniseries). Has no significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and is nothing but a repeat of the plot of the series. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and goes against both the TV and Film MoSs and the current and old versions of WP:FICT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gotta agree with the nom on this one. 100% plot summary, and just a character-specific rehash of the summary that's already present in the main article, which already needs trimming. Hence nothing worth saving or merging, and the disambiguator makes even the title an unlikely search term, so delete. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rebuild as a dab page, there are several characters named "Glitch" in several pieces of fiction, this one doesn't seem to have priority. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think Glitch (disambiguation) suffices as a dab page. If there are indeed several characters named Glitch, we need merely create an "In fiction" section within that dab page. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per the nominator's solid argument. I do not see this character article ever possessing primarily real-world context with plot detail only complementing as necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reliably sourced content to Tin Man (TV miniseries) due to inane attempt at article rescue which completely misrepresents the content to indicate that the fictional character is notable enough to warrant a separate article. —Erik (talk • contrib)

Merge to List of characters in Tin Man. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ← Note: This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM not being valid reasons for deletion, especially when we can merge or even improve the article using reviews. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody here has said simply "per nom" or "just not notable". We've all given reasons why we agree with the nominator's assessement as well as reasons why we feel the article fails the notability criteria. I'm not seeing any empty arguments here; every !vote has been well-explained. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They don't seem to back up the reality of sources available from Google News, i.e. the character is discussed out if universe in multiple reliable sources so the claims that it fails Notability is not accurate (it has out of universe coverage in multiple secondary sources, which means it can meet Plot by adding reception information as well as Fict by having coverage in multiple secondary sources, which I will begin to add in short order). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you mind tossing up a link to what GN hits you've gotten, as you did in the DG example? I'd like to look over the hits. Don't have much time to now - gotta get back to work - but will gladly look at them later. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure, check through the 65 results here. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So far you've only added one single line. The first ref is unnecessary. A reference isn't needed to say the character is in the film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a start and Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. If it I didn't have to go back and forth here as well, I would be able to focus more on the articles. Simultaneously looking through sources, commenting in discussions, eating cookies, checking email, writing articles, etc. means I need more time! :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in Tin Man as is standard in these cases. Character has some degree of notability, and combined they certainly do. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list article is also up for deletion, so perhaps that ought to be settled first before we consider merging anything into it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I've suggested that that AfD be put on hold until this gets settled out. Seems a lot cleaner. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to List of characters in Tin Man or Tin Man (TV miniseries). This miniseries was substantially reviewed by nearly every major newspaper and many national magazines, so there is clearly plenty of independent reliable source material to say something independently verifiable about this major character. Whether it should be said in a separate article or in the list of characters or main article is a question to be determined on the articles' talk pages, not at AfD. DHowell (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This i sone of the main supporting characters in the series and media folks LOVE to talk about TV characters and the acting challenges. Granted much of that be somewhat superficial but the net result is dozens of interviews, which, when added to DVD commentary, reviews and criticisms of the series involving this character, etc means plenty f sourcing is available. pushing all characters into a series article can sometimes be helpful but often it makes that article worse and the result is a loss for those who look to wikipedia for credible and neutral reporting. -- Banjeboi 09:26, 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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Cain[edit]

Unnotable character from the television miniseries Tin Man (TV miniseries). Has no significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and is nothing but a repeat of the plot of the series. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and goes against both the TV and Film MoSs and the current and old versions of WP:FICT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gotta agree with the nom on this one. 100% plot summary, and just a character-specific rehash of the summary that's already present in the main article, which already needs trimming. Hence nothing worth saving or merging, and I doubt even the title is a likely search term, so delete. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per the nominator's solid argument. I do not see this character article ever possessing primarily real-world context with plot detail only complementing as necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reliably sourced content to Tin Man (TV miniseries) due to inane attempt at article rescue which completely misrepresents the content to indicate that the fictional character is notable enough to warrant a separate article. —Erik (talk • contrib)

Merge to List of characters in Tin Man. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ← Note: This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM not being valid reasons for deletion, especially when we can merge or even improve the article using reviews. Subject is discussed in multiple reliable sources, which means it meets our current version of WP:FICT. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few lines of production, which just as easily apply to the entire miniseries, and one line of reception is not significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found significant coverage in numerous reliable sources and have begun adding Production and Reception sections accordingly; lots more from looking through searches to allow for even greater expansion of this article concerning a titular character. No one could reasonably say that there's nothing to at worst merge to a list of characters at this point. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate those efforts, I really do, but I don't see how this wouldn't fit nicely in the main article and actually make that article better. 2 sentences on casting and 1 on reception really isn't enough to justify a stand-alone article, though I would really like to see these sources added to the main article in improved "casting" and "reception" sections. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, then would you at least be okay with a merge and redirect with the edit history intact and by the way, I am still working on this and the other articles, which means that there will be more added to the reception and production sections in short order. I am reluctant to merge during AfDs. I don't see any real reason why we shouldn't be able to do so, but I've seen others come up with things in the past. Personally, I think we should be able to add the stuff to this article, merge with the list, and the main article so we can compare and see what works best. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on how the information is transferred to the main article. Right now what I'm considering is looking at the refs you've added to the individual character articles and using them to rewrite the casting and reception sections in the main article. I wouldn't be copying your text, I'd be doing my own writing using the same source material. If that were the result then there wouldn't be a need to keep the histories of the character articles, as there would be in a true "merge", so I'd favor a delete & redirect in order to avoid someone simply recreating the article via a revert (which is all too common when these AfDs conclude as merge). Now, if I wound up transferring your text into the main article, aka an actual "merge" of content, then yes the history would have to be preserved. So it will depend on how I go about it...I'll start working on the main article tonight and see what we wind up with. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This information is not merely relevant to the mini-series. This character is essentially, as the title of the mini-series suggests, a portrayal/depiction of a character that has appeared in multiple films and work of literature, i.e. it can and should be added to the modern works section of Tin Woodman. I would support a merge that allows for the information to also go to expand that article on a very notable character as well, but I still am seeing no pressing or compelling need to delete edit histories here as we don't delete edit histories for verifiable subjects that are referenced in out of universe fashion in multiple reliable sources. Only libel or copy vios must be deleted. Otherwise our policies and guidelines ask us to preserve information as best as possible (we have a section in some policy that someone pointed out the other day about preserving information that I'll have to re-look for). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of characters in Tin Man as is standard in these cases or keep. Character has some degree of notability, and combined they certainly do. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep as the article is now sourced and written better than I'd suspected it could be. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources talk about the character in the context of the miniseries. Sentences have been cherry-picked from reliable sources to make this character seem more significant than it actually is. As we can see, the miniseries article is very sparse, so it is pretty inane to spin out a character article for posterity's sake when we can build up the main article with these same details, whose sourcing is encompassing of the whole miniseries. Why not merge to the miniseries article? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just as a note, they shouldn't only be merged to the article on the series, but also to the sections on modern adaptations in Dorthy Gale, Tin Woodman, etc. The out of universe information, such as actress Zooey Deschanel expaining that she was not trying to imitate Judy Garland and the like would be excellent for improving these articles. No one could make a valid case for the Dorothy Gale, Tin Woodman, etc. articles being deleted because these are iconic characters with appearances in many notable movies and literature and as such the out of universe information I have only begun to add, can and should go to flesh in these articles about the characters in general, which would still mean a merge and redirect with edit history intact. I would support that as a compromise. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nice work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to List of characters in Tin Man or Tin Man (TV miniseries). This miniseries was substantially reviewed by nearly every major newspaper and many national magazines, so there is clearly plenty of independent reliable source material to say something independently verifiable about the titular character. Whether it should be said in a separate article or in the list of characters or main article is a question to be determined on the articles' talk pages, not at AfD. DHowell (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sourcing, which is accepted as notability enough for an article. Whether the articles might be better merged is a separate topic to be discussed elsewhere. DGG (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced and written within policy compliance, and by definition this is a main character in the series. No need to delete this. -- Banjeboi 08:47, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DG (character)[edit]

Unnotable character from the television miniseries Tin Man (TV miniseries). Has no significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and is nothing but a repeat of the plot of the series. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and goes against both the TV and Film MoSs and the current and old versions of WP:FICT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gotta agree with the nom on this one. 100% plot summary, and just a character-specific rehash of the summary that's already present in the main article, which already needs trimming. Hence nothing worth saving or merging, and the disambiguator makes even the title an unlikely search term, so delete. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines, and the article is from a totally in-universe persepctive that doesn't analyze the character's relationship with the real world. Themfromspace (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in Tin Man. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ← Note: This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That article's up for deletion for the same reasons as this one, so I'm not sure how that'd help. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to out of universe discussion of character available in numerous reliable secondary sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked over the first page of results there and only this one seems to devote any substantial coverage to this particular character, and it's not anything that couldn't easily be worked into the main Tin Man (TV miniseries) article. I really don't think that's enough to support a stand-alone article. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's plenty more. In but minutes, I have already been able to find out of universe information in newspapers and other reliable sources to start Production and Reception sections and I see there's even more from my searches for further expansion and referencing. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually provide way more than one line of production and two lines of reception, all of which also apply the miniseries as a whole which is notably absent of such information. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not help? These lines apply specifically to this notable character and is a sufficient start that justifies at worst a merge and redirect, but clearly any reason for deletion has been eliminated at this point. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help what? Add a few lines of stuff to an article, proclaim "you must keep now" when really, there is still little real-world info beyond a few snippets of information, then abandon it to the same sorry state if the AfD closes as a keep (as I have seen others who make the same arguments do in many such discussions before)? If you feel its a merge, then say merge instead of a delete, say so instead of proclaiming it must be kept as is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I really do appreciate the efforts, but I'd much prefer to see this effort and improvement being put into the main article, where it is really needed. These sources are great for expanding "casting" and "reception" sections within the main article, and then we can consider stand-alone article if appropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe this information should go there, too, I am not opposed to it being added, but I really see no reason why not to also expand on it here as well as we can do so. After all, we have an article on Battle of Waterloo that overlaps with Napoleon. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still personally think it should be kept because it meets our guidelines by having a balance of in-universe plot with out of universe information on production and reception and I can clearly see that there are actually several times as many sources as I did use that can be used to further expand this sections. It is difficult work trying to rescue these articles and having to comment in the AfDs as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that's a fair comparison at all, as there are innumerable sources for both Napoleon and Waterloo. There are volumes upon volumes devoted just to Waterloo, as it's a battle of major historical significance that's been studied by hundreds of scholars in the 2 centuries since it happened. We're talking about individual characters from a 3-episode television miniseries a little over a year old. Hardly a comparable amount of material to expand on, and the pool of available source material is tiny by comparison. But I digress...I'll do some work on the main article tonight using the refs you've supplied and see where it takes us. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there are dozens of reliable secondary sources for this character as well, which is of major significance for people who study fictional characters, because truthful what this article concerns is essentially a variation of a character that has appeared in various films and literature for decades, i.e. it's not merely mergeable and relevant to the mini-series. The out of universe information, especially where Miss Deschanel discusses her portrayal versus Judy Garland's is also mergeable and relevant to Dorothy Gale. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of characters in Tin Man as is standard in these cases or keep. Character has some degree of notability, and combined they certainly do. Hobit (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep as the article is now sourced and written better than I'd suspected it could be. Hobit (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are sources. One would think this ought to satisfy everyone involved. Apparently it doesn't--but that seems to just be the general line taken by those who oppose these articles, that whatever might be added will necessarily be trivial, because the topic is necessarily trivial. That's a dangerous approach, because if we combine everything that one or another editor here think is trivial, there won;t be much left. Furthermore, such n approach is discouraging to the readers. As Samuel Johnson once said about childish tastes, "they'll find better books later". DGG (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at those sources? All that is in the article is all any of them actually say. That isn't significant cover independant of the film, its just plain coverage of the film. Of course any review/article on the film itself is going to mention the characters briefly, that doesn't make them notable. Indeed, at least three of those "sources" are the same review being used to argue keep on ALL of these articles because it is a review of the miniseries. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a thorough Google News search, you will see not just reviews, but also interviews and previews and the fact that they appear in such notable publications as The New York Times means that the characters and series have attracted mainstream attention. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is not being lazy as much as he is advancing an intellectually meretricious view, cleverly gussied up as a virtue. We have long agreed by consensus that Wikipedia is not a trivia site. Adding trivia and then "sourcing" it and placing it under a different rubric doesn't make it any less trivial. If an article consists merely of plot and trivia, it doesn't belong here, pure and simple. Delete. Eusebeus (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually consistents of about as much out of universe information as it does in universe and sources like the The New York Times are hardly trivial, which is why there is no valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebeus, could you explain how to determine if something is "trivia" or not? It sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as one man's trivia (say various bits of computer architecture) is quite important to another. But I'm curious how you'd deal with that. Just take opinions in AfD? 03:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, almost every possible topic of less than universal interest has been challenged as trivial: Biblical characters, medieval rulers, distinguished professors,, railroad stations, American Idol winners, professional wrestlers, classical musicians, standard historic ballads, Shakespearian sonnets, and almost everything in the way of fiction. Again, I'll let Samuel Johnson say it "All knowledge is itself of some value. There is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would rather know it than not." (14 Apr.1775) I hope people will not consider that meretricious (=dishonest) also. DGG (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nice work finding sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reliably sourced content to miniseries article; article should not stand alone because of attempted rescue that falsely plays up the significance of this character. Sources can be used to cover this character and other details of the miniseries at the miniseries article itself. Grow outward from within; don't keep inanely spun out articles for posterity's sake. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to List of characters in Tin Man or Tin Man (TV miniseries). This miniseries was substantially reviewed by nearly every major newspaper and many national magazines, so there is clearly plenty of independent reliable source material to say something independently verifiable about the main character. Whether it should be said in a separate article or in the list of characters or main article is a question to be determined on the articles' talk pages, not at AfD. DHowell (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main supporting character in a series and article NPOV and has sources added. No reason to delete this. -- Banjeboi 08:51, 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 speedy keep. nomination withdrawn Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Battle Hill[edit]

A very poor quality article on a real battle which was part of the New Zealand land wars. Consensus on the talk page is that it would be better to delete this article and leave the option for someone to write a decent article at some future point, rather than try to salvage it. gadfium 04:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to withdraw this AfD now that the article has been rewritten.-gadfium 08:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 04:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject has true potential but this is unsalvageable. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just re-wrote the article as a stub, and cited it from a couple of reliable-looking sources. As there seems to be no debate that the battle was notable, there seems to be no reason to delete. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The new version is concise and seems accurate as far as it goes. I agree the previous version was very poor. -- Avenue (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if Nick-D hadn't rewritten it, WP:DELETION requires us to fix problems that can be fixed by edit in preference to deletion, and it was clear that this could be fixed by editing. AFD is not for article cleanup. JulesH (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:20, 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 keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCms[edit]

Product fails WP:N and no WP:RS 16x9 (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have cleaned up the article and added references that establish notability. There are plenty more sources to be had as well. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 21:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources added by LinguistAtLarge demonstrate notability. JulesH (talk) 22:03, 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 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jahia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Software that is not notable borderline G11. 16x9 (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article seems to be around to promote the subject and offers no encyclopedic coverage of how the software relates to the world. Only trivial mentions can be found in my searches for notability. Themfromspace (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is some coverage in third party sources linked into the article, but the only coverage is trivial in nature, merely listing the existence of the product or announcing new versions and copying the changelog for the product. Unless better sources can be found, this isn't really notable. JulesH (talk) 22:05, 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 keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Geospatial Intelligence Foundation (USGIF)[edit]

OK, where shall I begin.

Basically, approximately one half of the article is blatant copyright infringement, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Compare the section labeled "committees" with the pages linked from http://www.usgif.org/About_Committees.aspx Also, note the layout similarities between this article and the javascript menus on the website. The section labeled "Board of Directors" is also a direct copy/paste of http://www.usgif.org/About_Board.aspx, although I am not 100% sure if that is copyrightable, as it seems to lack an expression of creativity.

The rest of the article is so obviously copied from somewhere that it galls me to no end that I cannot find where the original is. My guess is that it is somewhere inaccessible to Google's spider, possibly in a "members only" section or something. Regardless, this makes little difference, as the text is still blatantly biased, and would have to be completely rewritten at a fundamental level to become remotely encyclopedic.

And if, after reading this article and noting its style and diction, there is still any doubt that it was directly copied, in it's entirety, from another source, look at the last level-2 header: "V. Supporting Education". That is a roman numeral from an outline.

The only reason I am filing this AFD rather than speedy deleting it is because the article has been deleted and restored twice already. I don't dare to wheel-war, even for something like this. So please, just vote delete so we can get rid of this. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because in addition to (some of) the problems listed above the club also generates no hits (except maybe the first one, in Forbes--but it's inaccessible or broken) on Google News that aren't press releases. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm the admin that restored the article (twice). I don't have any strong belief that the article should be kept or deleted; I was mainly concerned about the out-of-process deletions for spurious, unjustified reasons. I also don't think it's a valid G11; despite its biased language, I don't think it's promotional. If this article is deleted it should be because the USGIF isn't notable, which requires careful consideration in a public forum. (The Roman numerals used to be on all the sections - but the fact that an editor isn't familiar with our style conventions is not by itself proof of copyright violation.) Dcoetzee 10:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I accept Dcoetzee's point about the copyvio, and subtracting the copyvio, the nomination doesn't cite any valid reasons to delete the article. All it provides are reasons to improve it. -- Comment. Also, this is the worst AFD nomination I've ever read. Just be factual and succinct.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - but cut back anything that can be supported through a publicly available reliable source. Racepacket (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite - the subject is noteworthy enough, but needs to be rewritten to an enyclopedic tone and standard. KaySL (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite--Sources are available to establish the notability of the subject, 1. You can improve the article by editing and removing the "crap". --J.Mundo (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are those articles strong enough as secondary sources? They're from GEO World, PR Newswire, and other press release conduits. I looked through pages and pages of "hits," and I can't find a single magazine or newspaper article, which, really, one should expect. Restate: I went through all of them, and didn't see a single article that I think satisfies. Just linking to search results isn't enough; please look carefully at what those results are. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at this point, I think, though I thought it very iffy when I arrived. :) There was indeed substantial text copied from the official site--see my edit summaries for locations of some of those. Mixed in with what seems to be original text, it could have been a proper candidate for WP:CP to be sure! I've done some cleaning of duplicated text as well as promotional text and have poked about a bit to see if there's any real notability underneath the puffery. I've added a few WP:RS and evaluated some of the sources already used. I believe, though good sources may be buried in a glut of press, that this organization may have a legitimate claim to notability in its GEOINT Symposium and to a lesser extent perhaps in its Geospatial Intelligence Certificate Program. I'm out of time to search for more sourcing. :/ There is an inaccessible reference to the latter in this book (I know it says, "Recently, the United States Geospatial Intelligence Foundation (USGIF) decided to develop an accreditation program for courses or degrees focused on" but that's as much as I can see.) Maybe somebody with more time can poke further to see if there's anything else substantial out there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:04, 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. The arguments that he had never played at the highest level of his sport were very convincing. Therefore the community feels he fails WP:ATHLETE. Further, the comments indicating that his lack of professional (or notable) activities reduces his notability below the threshold of WP:N and WP:BIO were also convincing. Should additional offline citations be verified as having notability outside of his perceived athletic potential, the article could be recreated. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Pacheco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Yes, this has been deleted before, but with a recent confusion over a singer with the (virtually) same name was recreated. This version is better referenced and may meet notability guidelines. However, the references all confirm that he is a youth player, and he has not played in the first team, so appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as he has not yet competed at the highest pro level.

Nominating to get a clear community consensus, so we can hopefully put this to bed, one way or the other. --Ged UK (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reserve League players fail WP:ATHLETE. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Per nom. Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Livna-Maor (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since the reserves are not fully professional, he also fails the project guidelines at WP:Footy/Notability. Even though he has received media coverage, it's all been at the local level, so I don't think the general notability guidelines should save the article. If he gets called up to the first team, if he's loaned to and plays for a fully professional side, or if he's selected to Spain's national team, we can revisit this decision, but until then, he's not a player of sufficient notability to have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article in a hurry as a result of the discussion about the deletion of the musician's article. I did too rushed a job, including with my quick sourcing. Dani Pacheco the footballer has received media coverage beyond just some mentions at the local level; for example, there was coverage in El Mundo and on EFE about how he was signed by an English team at such a young age. Hang on while I dig up some of the sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references includes coverage by national newspapers, which means he meets WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When a subject receives substantive coverage from a variety of sources, over a sustained period, that's an indication that there is sufficient interest for Wikipedia to have an article about the subject. I think that's the spirit of the notability guidelines. We do not need to go to secondary notability guidelines in cases like that. I've now added not just coverage in El Mundo and EFE, but also The Journal and the Sunday Mirror. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know i nominated it, but these additional references are enough for me that he meets the notability guidelines. Notability trumps Athlete and the Footy guidelines. I don't want to withdraw my nomination though as it will only come up again. --Ged UK (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nomination cannot be withdrawn so long as there are users who have !voted to delete the article. I'm about to look at the article and see what the new sources bring to the table. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only has the extent of coverage in the sources been expanded, but one of the sources revealed that he played for the Spanish national under-17 team. That pushes him over the top of the notability hurdle in my mind. (Further, the source says he got a hat trick in the U-17 match.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Playing national under-age football doesn't generally automatically confer notability, especially U-17. Many U-17s will disappear off the map. U-21s perhaps, but by that age players are generally playing League football at least semi-regularly. --Ged UK (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Representation at national level in youth competition is not notability - even if he scores hat-tricks. He needs to play in a proper notable match, at least once. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable youth player. No substantial coverage other than in local paper. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is substantial coverage in El Mundo and EFE—it's not just passing mentions—and those are not local papers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no idea how substantial the coverage in either of those two references is, as I cannot see them. The EFE one at least mentions him by name in the headline, so may be substantial, but the El Mundo may be just a throwaway mention of his name for all I know. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you do not look up the articles yourself, then I suppose it comes down to whether you trust me when I tell you that the articles discuss Pacheco in sufficient depth. I've brought up the El Mundo article from my library's database again. It would have helped if I had provided the entire headline, which I had truncated because it was so long. Here it is: "Un madridista 'robado' al Barcelona: Dani Pacheco, Malagueño, 17 años, debuta con el Liverpool «Hemos empezado a ver su talento», dice Benitez «Es un sueño», afirma el". The article is about how a talent scout system in England is poaching Spanish youth players away from their home country, with Pacheco being discussed as the prime example (others are listed, but his is the only story actually laid out). The story is about 1000 words, six paragraphs. Paragraphs two through six of the story discuss Pacheco. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I see it, he will fail Athlete at the moment, the question should be does he pass Notability, which is a more important criterion. --Ged UK (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Having failed WP:Athlete. I am concerned about those citations, the article has too many citations, and you can not cross verify them in the current format they are in. As only two lead off to the web. The citations don't link to the actual websites of those media companies and haven't used the web articles, which is normally duplicated on the web for local media. In many ways the citations have WP:Bio fails. Govvy (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can verify non-Internet citations. It might involve a trip to a library. (Sorry if that sounds a bit snarky, but I was not sure how else to put it.) "The sources are not available on the web" is not a valid reason to delete an article. Please clarify if I have misunderstood what you are saying. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:N suggesting sufficient sources for a V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are sources but none of them indicate that he has done anything notable enough to deserve an encyclopaedia entry. If/when he plays for the first team at a professional club he should get an article, creating one now is just crystal balling that he is going to have a successful career as a footballer. King of the North East 22:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are confusing Notability with Fame and importance. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not, I could find hundreds of external links for a Romeo Beckham or David Banda article because loads of journalists have nothing better to do that write about the children of the famous, just as loads of sports journalists have nothing better to do than write about a footballer that has never even played a fully competitive game. He clearly fails to meet the notability criteia expected of sportsmen, and to keep him for the existence of some sources means that if he fails to play at professional level we will be stuck with an article about a footballer that never even played football. King of the North East 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persuasively put. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is not a content criterion. The Core content policies are Verifiability, Neutral Point-of-View, and No Original Research. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do overlay these with commonsense, for example, precluding articles on the infant children of monarchs or prime ministers, about whom reams of material are written in RS. This is another example - lots of coverage of non notable competition. Much like my local paper prints masses about 12 year old swimmers who do well in the national trials for their age. They're not notable. --Dweller (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commonsense, yes. Importance, no. If there are enough reliable sources to write a verifiable, NPOV article, then it is valid for inclusion. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per full agreement with User:King of the North East's comments just above regarding beck's babes and not yet made it footballers. Couldn't have put it better... recreate if and when.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Plenty of sources - YES, for doing anything notable? NO - not yet anyway - wiki is not a crystal ball.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of sources=notable. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would actually say "presumption of notability", that is a little bit different. As someone stated above, Romeo Beckham and David Banda have plenty of sources, but I doubt they can actually be defined "notable subjects". --Angelo (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, meeting one or more criteria of WP:N presumes notability. Actually being noted in plenty of sources is notability. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:N says clearly: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". And also: "Presumed means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability". What you say is not part of WP:N and is just your own personal opinion and interpretation. --Angelo (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, WP:N is a guideline to interpret the WP:Core content policies. If the subject of the article meets WP:N, we may presume that it is notable enough that a V, NPOV, NOR article may be written. It has nothing to do with importance; importance is POV. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:Core content policies looks to be more an essay than policy itself. --Angelo (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The core content policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, the article that defines them as "core content policies" is an essay. And even if it would be policy, I could always say journalists writing article where they define this subject as "perspective future champion" are failing WP:V (how to verify this? Let's just wait and see?) and WP:NPOV (not a neutral point of view, for sure, since that is the journalist's own opinion). So, how about reliability of sources? You should get in to evaluate these sources rather than using their number as a measure, no matter where they come from (I've read of a load of nonsense articles with mistakes also coming from BBC, and I don't even want to talk about The Sun, Daily Mirror, AS.com and Marca - since I can read Spanish as well). --Angelo (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do not cover the subject in detail, but just marginally refer to him as a "future perspective", that is against WP:CRYSTAL and the spirit of Wikipedia. --Angelo (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we seem to have developed a cut off point whereby a player needs a match in a fully professional, or national top-level, league to be on Wikipedia. This works, prevents spurious articles about every Premiership reserve player and should be supported. If he's good enough he'll have an article soon. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a footballer who has never played a match - recreate if/when he plays. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Never played a fully pro match. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:N with the numerous articles about him referenced in the article - and a quick search on Google News yields many, many more. That he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE is irrelevent; WP guidelines are quite clear, if one meets WP:N one doesn't need to meet WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N clearly satisfied. For those who were unable to read the El Mundo article, I have located a copy of it on their web site and added the link to the reference. It is clearly a non-trivial reliable source reference, along with a number of the others, clearly meating WP:N. Failure to also meet WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant. JulesH (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Angelo has already quoted the relevant part of WP:N here - "Presumed means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability". Although sources do exist, they do not establish his notability as he has actually acheived nothing of note (simply signing for a top club isn't enough here). He fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play a first team match at a full professional level, and playing in youth internationals does not confer notability neither. Bettia (rawr!) 09:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unconvinced by the sources, which by and large use speculation about what Pachuco might become rather than what he actually is. For example the Liverpool Daily Post ref says "As will continue to be said for the foreseeable future there is still a long, long way to go before Pacheco can make the step up from warm up games to the real thing". The El Mundo ref basically says that Liverpool have dozens of youth players from around Europe, several reserves are Spanish, Pachuco is one of the better ones. Most of the references for things other than birthdate etc. are about reserve matches. Reserve matches receive limited coverage in the local press, but rarely further afield, and to regard it as significant coverage is stretching it. The Liverpool Echo reports on Prescot Cables matches too, but that doesn't mean their players are notable. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article are enough to meet our general notability guideline. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keeping this article would open the floodgates to thousands of articles about footballers who have never played at a professional level. Every local newspaper in Britain has in depth coverage of non-league teams in their area. I could write articles about dozens of Whitehill Welfare, Edinburgh University and Spartans players on the basis of what is reported on at least one page of the Edinburgh Evening News six days a week. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's amazing that WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN are attacked from one side by editors that claim WP:N should override them under any circumstances, (no matter whether the subject is a child that has never played a full game or a semi-pro/amateur footballer that actually earns his living as a postman) and from the other side that claim that these guidelines are far to lax and that it is a travesty that their beloved encyclopaedia hosts 20,000 odd biographies of professional footballers. King of the North East 00:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't! Bettia (rawr!) 09:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is not a content criterion. There must simply be sufficient reliable sources for a Verifiable, NPOV, No original research article. WP:N and WP:ATHLETE are tools to suggest whether there may be sufficient sources when they are not already present. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:53, 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 keep. I weighed the arguments presented by each side, and after evaluating the strength of the arguments—including citations to relevant policies—I feel it has been established that through reliable sources, the article meets WP:N. As such, consensus here is to keep the article. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the Inauguration of Barack Obama[edit]

It is an invitation. There are many like it. I myself can write a good descriptive article about *any* invitation. Please consider that notability of this singular invitation. Kind regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is what "WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information" means. WP:Notability is also not temporary; who beyond die-hard fans of paper and/or presidential minutiae are going to care about this in a month's time? howcheng {chat} 03:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I think...this is strange, and kind of interesting! It's actually pretty well-sourced, but I can't decide if that guarantees notability--I guess it doesn't, cause this is pretty useless information. Part of my negative vibe is also caused by the Recipients section, a pretty blatant attempt at name-dropping. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge--I figured out what I think--to Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration (as if that article isn't big enough). That's where it belongs; I don't think a redirect is in order. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, any objections to a merge and redirect? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you write and print a nice invitation to a merge? And then an article about it? :) Drmies (talk)

Keep, so...well... honestly, it has four very good, independent sources that talk just about the invitations. I don't see why we would change our standards for notability because we are judging a subject as trivial or silly. It seems a bit ridiculous that Wikipedia has this article, but it meets the standards we have set and enforced throughout the encyclopedia. The length of the article would qualify it for bumping out of the '09 inauguration article, anyway (especially given that the article isn't just some ramble about the inaug, but is actually incredibly focused on the invitation itself). SMSpivey (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you say, esp. on WP policy, and I agree that it's not a ramble; still, it can be cut to size, so to speak--cut the long "the invitation reads" sentence, and in the Printing section, one could cut from "The design" to "the seal," which aren't really relevant (part is a definition of engraving, part is probably a bit too trivial). Perhaps the Paper section can go too. Might that sway you some? Drmies (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SMSpivey says it well. While I was very surprised this article existed, it is more up to par than many more "important" or "notable" articles in that it is well written, includes and image, and is well referenced. In my opinion, it passes all the tests to exist (indeed, better than some) and based on the policies, deserves to be around. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It meets the technical threshold of notability, and is too detailed to merge into the parent article.--ragesoss (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This isn't a silly enough article to qualify as trivia. Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as principal author. I don't see what information has been indiscriminately collected here, but maybe I'm too close to the article. Drmies, the "name-dropping" wasn't supposed to be so - I have little regard for many of the people named, but they are all sourced. The "The invitation reads..." part, I think is important for those who do not have images turned on, or blind people who cannot see the script on the image. With regard to the definition of engraving, I tried to provide WP:CONTEXT to readers who may not know about the process and don't wish to navigate away from the page. Perhaps the part about the first plate needing to be scrapped is too trivial, though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Matthew, sorry, I didn't intend that as an insult, though it did seem to me that the names were there to beef up the article a bit. :) As you can perhaps glean from my remarks, I have the highest regard for what you wrote and how you wrote it (or maybe only I can see that--sorry about this impersonal medium). I said "pretty useless" and in one way I mean it; in another way, lots of really good and fun things are useless. If folks want to keep, I'll be the first to cheer. If that sounds contradictory, well, I contain multitudes. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — as obscure an article as it seems along the lines of, say, an article on Pikachu's left foot, this actually does establishes good independent notability and is well-written. MuZemike 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — my first inclination was to say this is an unencyclopedic topic with too much minute detail, and wouldn't be interesting to anyone. But I have had a change of heart. It meets notability requirements, is well sourced and well-written. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SMSpivey. cmadler (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as completely unencyclopedic trivia. The author seems to be a very experienced editor, and has created a pretty good looking and well sourced article, but he should know better. The fact that there are sources does not make it notable, as you need to consider the topic's lasting historical significance and impact, which differentiates us from the passing interests of the news media (see also WP:NOT#NEWS or the essay WP:NOTNEWS). This article does not prove, or really even assert, the significance of the document. I don't see how it is anything more than a souvenir. The sources are tabloids, local news or human interest type stories about the making of the invitation, but that doesn't make it a good topic for an encyclopedia. What's more, you can see how the article has been "padded" to disguise the lack of real substance. The Recipients section for instance is only obliquely related to the invitation itself, and is more appropriately covered in the main article for the Inauguration. The controversy over Rick Warren is a political matter completely unrelated to this piece of paper. Making note of which celebrities received invitations is just tabloid sensationalism. Lastly, we should also consider whether celebrity worship of American politicians is appropriate for an international project. Fletcher (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is tempting to vote keep, since the article is well-sourced and written; but, unfortunately, the subject fails WP:NOT#NEWS. The media coverage of the invitations has been either incidental (X received invitation) or, one of those human-interest, "soft" news stories - and, considering the context, has been relatively meager (even Michele Obama's inaugural dress received significantly greater media attention than the invitations). The article talks about the design, paper, printing etc, without making the case that any of these attributes are unique or significant - besides being a very minor part of an undoubtedly notable event, Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration. I doubt anyone will be writing about the invitation one week from now (let alone 50 years down the line), and that is the defining difference between mere news-of-the-day and encyclopedic content. Abecedare (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced; there is some notability in the attempt to produce it in a green manner. We'll probably want to upmerge it, but let things settle down first, then we can rearrange the Obama inauguration articles. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An excellent, well written, carefully researched article. All that matters is that it is notable and verifiable, and it meets both standards. There is no need to merge or trim the information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (but move title to plural, Invitations to the inauguration of Barack Obama) because Wikipedia is not paper and we can write about all kinds of crazy stuff, including cool historical tidbits (assuming that within several years these will be "historical tidbits"). These have clearly been written about a lot in a wide variety of sources, which is enough to satisfy WP:N for me. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good, well written and well sourced article.Biophys (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ineffectively argued at this point. Clearly this will be kept, but in the long run, I hope that this will become an article about such invitations in general. This aspect of the American presidency is of encyclopedic interest -- for obvious reasons, these golden tickets have to be prepared very carefully, and that was true before 2009. However, I don't think that a detailed description of a ticket for any particular inauguration ceremony would be worth an article. I doubt that anyone's planning an article about, say, the pass to see the 2003 swearing in of Néstor Kirchner, but I don't consider that to be worth its own article either. A few months from now, we'll look back on this and the other Inauguration Week articles from a different perspective. At that time, more people may wonder why we were so interested in the typeface and paper stock for a piece of cardboard. Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedians don't determine what is notable for inclusion. Third party media do. They publish the stories, and we garner the information and merge it into one cohesive narrative here in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but most of the people in this discussion are probably not in journalism, nor do they have to be. You'll see, as time goes on, that the purpose of the AfD forum is for Wikipedians, regardless of their backgrounds, to determine what is kept and what's deleted from the site. Most of those discussions come down to someone's opinion about whether the topic is notable enough for an article. If you're a member of the media, of course, you have the same right to participate as any other editor, but your status carries no greater weight than that of any other editor. Mandsford (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article is sourced and notability is not an issue. There are many invitations but very few to an historical event. This is what Wikipedia is all about. --J.Mundo (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it's pretty obscure on the relative scales of obscurity (especially the further we move away from the event) it's still proven historical from the global coverage, odd as that is. I have a feeling we're going to have a LOT of at first glance oddball really notable things coming out of the next four years. rootology (C)(T) 23:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that someone was able to write this article, with good sources, proves its significance. How many articles does Wikipedia have about video games that never sold a million copies? Mike Serfas (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are there - too much info to be included in the parent article on the inauguration - I'd say it's a keep. Joshdboz (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an image and caption of an invitation in the main inauguration article is probably sufficient. Details on the paper, ink and other minutiae are not that important -- this is not the Magna Carta, after all -- and invitees are only marginally related to the invitation itself. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I'm neutral about this issue, this invitation is only one of the invitations that were distributed for the inauguration. Aside from what is mentioned in the article, this invitation was also distributed to the general public who received tickets for inauguration (I know ... I got this invitation from the Obama Transition Project as a member of the general public). The other invitation that I've seen is a much nicer -- one that's in book format with the invitation on the left page and Obama's picture on the right page. Otherwise, nothing remarkable about the invitation. →Lwalt^♦ talk 23:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. topic is Notable and the information is verifiable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Initially seems like an obscure topic, but the article is well-written, verifiable, comprehensive and interesting. I think Wikipedia should have more articles like this, not fewer. -Halo (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration. Everyone here !voting "Keep" needs to read this section of "What Wikipedia is Not" very carefully. This is a great article, with great sourcing and great prose. But it is not an encyclopedic topic. And despite what some people have insisted above, this article can be condensed down and merged, because it has minimal encyclopedic value. I would say that Sarah Palin's outfit, Hillary Clinton confirmation hearings, and the Obama family dog are just as notable, if not more, as they have all had a significant amount of news coverage and have an impact on today's political climate in the US. Yet I would vote to delete those as well, because the full breadth of their impact on the world could be covered in a few sentences at Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Family of Barack Obama, respectively. Sure, one could come up with paragraphs upon paragraphs discussing the brand choices of Palin's clothes, the exact timeline of objections and votes on Clinton's nomination, and the details of how one of the Obama children is allergic to dogs so they must get a hypoallergenic one but they still want to adopt from a shelter. But these can be cut out and reduced to their full encyclopedic value: a few sentences. This article has no impact on the world except for the fact that it exists (existed?), which is very much NOT a criterion for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Could you imagine an article Invitation to the Inauguration of Millard Fillmore? That topic would be no less notable than this one.-Running On Brains 19:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side note, I'm pretty sure the Obama family dog will have an article, just like all the first family's pets. SMSpivey (talk) 23:32, 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 keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Theepan[edit]

One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. This one doesn't even have the fellow's first name. THF (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers & other wikipedia pages and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article is a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Notable high level commander of a very prominent militant organization, the Tamil Tigers. Also, this nomination is a horrible escapade in ignorance driven deletionism.Pectore^talk 22:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what goes in this article that can't be merged into Tamil Tigers? WP:AGF, please. Using "notable" as an adjective doesn't create notability. THF (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- note: the above user has already !voted Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving meaningless links to policy doesn't exactly prove it applies. Theepan has wide notability; as commander of the northern forces of the LTTE, as a negotiator, and as a revolutionary artillery commander.Pectore^talk 22:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is objective, not subjective. Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources? For that matter, what is his first name if he's so notable? THF (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The LTTE didnt release his name (Nagarajah Venthan) obviously because they dont want their commanders being blown up or known. Notability is certainly subjective, and its also relative, since other parts of the world arent saturated with media outlets to facilitate easy access to news. Theepan is a major figure in Sri Lanka, meriting mention in The Politics of Sri Lanka by Dissanayake and Balansingham's book on the Tamil struggle.Pectore^talk 23:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're demonstrating that, for all your accusations of ignorance, you don't understand the Wikipedia policies on notability. Notability is not subjective, and it doesn't mean "important"; it means "the subject of significant coverage from independent reliable sources." The fact that someone's name was mentioned in a news article or in a book does not constitute significant coverage; TamilNet is hardly independent; tamilguardian shouldn't be linked to at all per WP:EL, as it is an attack site blocked by good virus software so I can't see what it says. The references in the article don't add up to notability. And these one-line biographies don't merit 24 separate articles. Create List of Tamil military leaders and consolidate them there, and no one will complain about 24 one-line biographies. THF (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilnet is treated as "qualified source" under Wikipedia:SLR#List_of_sources and can be used with attribution. WP:EL refers to external links, not to references. Your anti-virus/parental control settings finally have no bearing on the issue. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Tamilguardian is a malware-virus site, and thus is not to be linked per WP:ELNO #3. THF (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how do you know it is a malware site? (serious question)
WP:EL: "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." this does thus not apply on this case
I agree that malware sites have close to no chances to be RSJasy jatere (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google identifies it as such and warns users against following links there. THF (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

read the whole thing. Seems to be third party http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.tamilguardian.com/&hl=en Jasy jatere (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more reference has been provided.-Iross1000 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

THF is right, what is needed is a properly cited List of LTTE military leaders article and redirect all these one liners and two liners to that article and any other. I have already redirected Colonel Seelan to the appropriate article. Even the list better be properly sourced not just websites but academic sources which are available. Conflict related articles should be done properly so that ones precious voluntary time is not wasted like this. All pedia rules have to met. Taprobanus (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree here. And blaming THF for ignorance is not appropriate, seeing as there is no notability asserted in any of these articles. This one, though, may be somewhat notable; he has led the LTTE in some important battles. I'll see if I can find anything. Chamal ^talk 10:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree with taprobanus and chamal. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of the few articles from this batch that can claim notability, since the individual is supposedly credited with some major military victories or whatnot. But that statement is currently unsourced. I've added a ^{[citation needed]} tag where a reference needs to go; if that statement can be supported by a reliable source soon, you will have won me over. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see the refs I asked for have been added. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the side, a general comment about this whole set of AfDs: from what I have seen so far, some of the individuals are notable and some aren't. It's clear that the editors who created the article think they are all notable. But it would have helped the process a lot if you could have provided sources and information from the beginning asserting that notability (ie, what they have done in their capacity as officers), rather than expecting us to just know what makes a Tamil Tiger notable. A lot of these arguments could have been averted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:14, 19 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 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep minimally supported, but adequately, considering the difficulties of sourcing for this area and our policy of avoiding systematic bias. One can, incidentally, give a source one can not properly link to, by just writing out the link in words with, if necessary, awarning. DGG (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 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 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twin concepts[edit]

No (or no reliable) external sources and no pages appear to link to it. Plastikspork (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to dualism or delete — we already have one article on this general topic, we don't need twins. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is alright, you delete what you pleas. I have a question though. What is dualism? This is what you have got there. Where is a definition?

Dualism denotes a state of two parts. The word's origin is the Latin duo, "two" . The term 'dualism' was originally coined to denote co-eternal binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse but has been diluted in general usage. I hope you know how to make a definition, it is in the wikipedia somewhere.

Vakeger (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. For the benefit of the commenter above: Dualism is both defined and discussed in, er, the article on Dualism. Metaphysical dualism gets a look-in. But i'd hardly say that the random examples from economics included in the article currently under discussion were part of a major philosophical discourse on dualism and duality. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following comment related to this discussion was posted on my userpage, which I have copied here for the record:

If you nominated twin concepts for deletion, then answer my question first: What is dualism, the redirect? Where is the definition? To remind you: am encyclopaedia is

The encyclopedia as we recognize it today was developed from the dictionary in the 18th century. A dictionary primarily focuses on words and their definitions, and typically provides limited information, analysis, or background for the word defined. While it may offer a definition, it may leave the reader still lacking in understanding the meaning, significance or limitations of a term, and how the term relates to a broader field of knowledge.
— Vakeger (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if we could keep the discussion all in one place. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Not sure that anything here is worth merging or redirecting to dualism. I don't see any sources relating "twin concepts" to dualism, and both general Google and Google Scholar bring forth random stuff in the first few pages rather than anything relating to the subject matter of this article - whatever the subject is. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Vakeger, arguments in Articles for Deletion discussions usually proceed on the basis of Wikipedia policy and related essays and opinion pieces, which are found in the Wikipedia: namespace and are referenced with links like this one, rather than by cut-and-pasted definitions drawn from the main namespace. As they stand, your arguments against deletion are somewhat incoherent, partly due to this approach. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:03, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Bhanu[edit]

One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers and other wikipedia pages and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article is a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ - One more reference has been added. Refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  - note: the above user has already !voted Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable high level commander of a very prominent militant organization, the Tamil Tigers. Also, this nomination is a horrible escapade in ignorance driven deletionismPectore^talk 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Clearly ONEEVENT. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the side, a general comment about this whole set of AfDs: from what I have seen so far, some of the individuals are notable and some aren't. It's clear that the editors who created the article think they are all notable. But it would have helped the process a lot if you could have provided sources and information from the beginning asserting that notability (ie, what they have done in their capacity as officers), rather than expecting us to just know what makes a Tamil Tiger notable. A lot of these arguments could have been averted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:31, 19 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 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References, sources, importance are there. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:27, 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. An adequate number of sources that establish notability have been found. (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corvette (game)[edit]

The article, about a racing video game, does not indicate how it is notable enough to merit its own article. Although I would rather keep the article than see it deleted, I was unable to find sources that show its notability. If reliable secondary sources are found, I will hurriedly withdraw this nomination. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and dabify... with Corvette (pinball) and Vette! 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the article lacks sufficient information to ascertain what game this refers to. It might be this PS2 game, but there's no way to tell. In any case the PS2 game is a budget title which does not appear to have garnered any reviews so delete in any case. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lloks to be enough in the way of reviews to clear the bar for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I remember seeing this on X-Play a long time ago(it was jeered), so there's at least one notable reviewer who took notice of it. And yeah, it is that PS2 game.- Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gamespot, TeamXbox, GameZone, MetaCritic. SharkD (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the first thee reviews are fine, but the last from metacritic is really just a rehashed publisher's press release. Thanks for digging them up. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point of mentioning MetaCritic is that MetaCritic links to other reliable sources. SharkD (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aye, scroll down past the publisher's summary and there's links to several other reviews. Reviews listed on Metacritic are usually reliable enough for FAC purposes, they should easily suffice here. -- Sabre (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources provided by SharkD might not be plentiful, but provide a suggestion that this subject is notable. -- Sabre (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few more listed here. SharkD (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seem to be two versions of the game—one for the PS2/Xbox and one for GBA. The article needs to distinguish between the two, though they're both made by TDK Mediactive. SharkD (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three reviews sounds good enough to me. Maybe later I can dig up something, if no one else does. Elm-39 (talk) 18:30, 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 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Queen[edit]

This individual, though heroic and interesting, is not even close to being notable. He just seems to be a friend of the editor, and there's no justification for this article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - there's no evidence that there are sufficient sources to establish that Mr Queen meets WP:BIO. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL appears relevant. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nick-D. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a shame that so many soldiers die in so many wars, but Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize them. Notability is not established by documenting the soldier's death on the web. Frank | talk 16:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The battle in which this individual fought, and was wounded, has been studied for the last four decades at the U.S. military academies, the U.S. Army War College, and Special Forces of most major nations. The USMC helecopter flight schools have played the audio taped radio transmissions during the battle to pilot trainees for over tirty years. This individual is historically significant and noteworthy in this regard. Also, at least one video game has been made, based upon this battle. Thanks for your interest and objective consideration of inhancing and improving this article. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's an argument for keeping an article on the battle, and not this particular person who participated in it. As per WP:BIO, individuals need substantial coverage in reliable sources to have an article on them. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even if the battle is notable, individual soldiers generally aren't -- notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. No indication that he meets WP:BIO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:43, 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 speedy keep. nomination withdrawn Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Moloney[edit]

Insufficent notability ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll take a hand in cleanup. His "award" might be useful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW NOM. What was I thinking??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wishes may close this AfD. The article has been majorly improved with cooperation of the nom and the nomination hassince been withdrawn. Its a Keep now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:47, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christine White[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th Kingdom character articles

Unnotable fictional character from single film/miniseries. No significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Nothing but a repeat of the miniseries plot with excessive details and serious WP:OR added. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and either version of WP:FICT you may feel is currently applicable.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same issues. All three articles are recreations of previously merged articles following 2006 AfD; creator just made under new article names, ignoring the existing and with no consensus for resplit (nor any fixing of the original issues. Also, as these are literally direct copies from the old articles, there are massive WP:COPYVIO issues as it was found that the old articles used tons of content lifted from the 10th Kingdom website:

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep t At least virginia and christine were appropriate for recreation--They are the main characters of the series. Principle characters in the major series deserve an article. Now, the present articles are perhaps a little too extensive for encyclopedic purposes--but the merged sections in the main article --at least the present ones--are much too little. It fundamentally doesn't really matter if we have separate articles, but it does matter that we have adequate content, and the best way of keeping this from disappearing does seem to be separate articles. I suggest that they could have been fixed at least little in less time than this argument will take. DGG (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being principal characters in a film (miniseries is still just a film) is not relevant without actual extensive coverage in reliable sources. There is also the very large issue that the article, being a direct copy/paste of the original merged articles is also almost entirely WP:COPYVIO from the website (an issue you did not addressed). And sorry, but I don't see what the merged sections are really missing. Between the plot and the character summaries (which don't even generally belong in a film article), the major points are covered. Extensive OR, guesswork, and copyrighted material does not add to the encyclopedic value at all. And, quite honestly, it seems extremely sneaky/underhanded that the person who created this articles created new articles by copying the old ones, rather than just undoing the merge/redirects of the original or even attempting discussion. Also note that he seemed to agree with the original merge in the film's talk page. His creations were disagreed, and he lied claiming "The previous article was not deleted, merely redirected and I have created new articles for each of the characters that were vastly superior to the previous ones" when a quick comparison shows they are pretty much the same. If, by some chance these are kept, then I do not envy the admin that will need to do some serious history merging with the previous articles for proper GFDL compliance. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the solid argument put forth by the nominator. Any useful information about the characters can be easily conveyed at the miniseries article, which is not exactly screaming for content forks. It is highly doubtful that such character articles would actually consist primarily of real-world context with plot detail to complement it as necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm persuaded by DGG's very cogent argument and have nothing to add to it.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN not being a valid reason for deletion, especially when the subject is referenced in published books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, my pet peeve: people linking to Google searches without, apparently, having actually looked at the search results. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My, my, you do like to cause a fuss don't you AnmaFinotera darling. I've been described as many things but I'd hope sneaky wouldn't be one of them. I recreated the article having used the previous article as a prototype but I changed the title and seriously improved the grammar as well as removing excessive redundant details. The differences between the two are striking. The same goes for the Virginia Lewis article. It was my first time recreating an article and the thought of simply reverting the redirect of the previous one hadn't occured to me. Nor did I lie about anything. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with A Nobody. This article does not deserve to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. -- Banjeboi 10:14, 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.

Polite architecture[edit]

The result was Keep closing early as nominator seem to have accepted the keep argument and no-one else is making a delete case. Those contending for keep seem to know what they are talking about.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable subject that seems to mostly made up of unsourced
original research. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous publications which refer to polite architecture. The article is not largely constituted by unsourced material/ Pease see the Brunskill extract. If you give me more time I wil source statments to spport the paragraph whch details the historical developlment of polite architecture. --His1ojd (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by His1ojd (talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will last several days. And if you need more time than that you can always work on the article in your userspace. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just what was the reasoning behind "non-notable"? Are you an admin, unable to stretch a hand and check the encyclopedia? No? Then pick it up, there's more here. Verdict: keep if someone competent in British architecture adopts and improves it; merge to vernacular architecture otherwise. NVO (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too late to include British architecture in this nomination (are oxymorons allowed)? No, only kidding. Maybe I'm off on this one. It could turn out to be a very impolite AfD. Are gargoyles considered polite or impolite? What about a leaky roof? "Between the extremes of the wholly vernacular and the completely polite, examples occur which have some vernacular and some polite content" Completely polite? LMAO. Is this for real or are you guys spoofing me? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the answer to your pains: Klein, Lawrence (1994). "Politeness" as linguistic ideology in late seventeenth and eighteenth-century England. ISBN 311013697X, ISBN 9783110136975. ((cite book)): |journal= ignored (help); External link in |journal= (help) pp. 31-50 . It may be an overwhelmingly difficult reading; hey, language history was never easy. This article itself can be a base for rewriting of Politeness (if Truthiness is FA, why not?). Which, irony aside, is another merge option. NVO (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this gem: "Historically, the growth of polite architecture tends to coincide with growths in wealth, the movement of people, the profession of architecture, the invention and use of man-made building materials, and the availability of transport networks capable of delivering materials produced outside of a building's immediate locality." So before there were professional architects everything was impolite? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Vernacular' rather than 'impolite' is the term ordinarily used to define buildings which are created for functional purposes, based on local building practices and materials, and pay little to no regard to national or international architectural styles and fashions. However, as the polite architecture page stipulates the difference between the polite and vernacular is often a matter of degree, with many examples of building illustrating elements of both traits. Before the advent of the social and economic factors, which Childofmidnight highlights, buildings were likely to be vernacular (please refer to vernacular architecture page), because the necessary social and economic structures were not in place to enable the realisation of particular architectural styles. Hence there are relatively few buildings today which could be regarded as 'polite' in larges areas of rural sub-Saharan Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.171.15 (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason not to have a page on this subject - it exists. However, the page does need a lot of work to meet Wikipedia standards, and is a little confusing. Polite architecture is a mostly 19th century product. The buildings are unique in design, often public or municipal buildings. The reason they are unique is because their architectural concepts and traditions are national or global, but they are built of local stone and materials - an exagerated and fictitious example would be a church in the style of St Paul's Cathedral, with no resemblence to the local provincial architecture, built in Norwich from local flintstone rather than the more sophisticated pale dressed stone that one would expect. Giano (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The differences between vernacular architecture and polite architecture are important topics in the conservation of historic buildings, especially in the UK. See: [24] [25] [26] among others. This is a clearly important topic in architectural history. Merging the page to the style that was basically its opposite is a clearly nonsensical solution to any perceived problems with this article. It should be allowed time to grow and develop by itself. JulesH (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Emphatically a real subject: see Google Books, and as JulesH says, it's antithetical to vernacular, so the merge is definitely wrong. It just needs development: expansion using more than just the Brunskill source. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing does need some development, particularly with regards to the paragraph addressing polite architecture's historical development. Reference to the use of polite definitions of architecture for building conservation purposes would also be beneficial. If someone could help, it would be greatly appreciated. --His1ojd (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by His1ojd (talk • contribs) 10:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His1ojd has added at least one good reference since the nomination. I agree the article needs a lot of work. Racepacket (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, I have looked at the google books sources. It's mostly trivial mentions in passing and often the authors had the good sense to put the term in quotes. This appears to be some sort of British contrivance, and as the article makes clear, it's an artifice of mostly imagined and thoroughly confused significance. But I suppose making up terms that signify little or nothing is what the British academics are best at. When we Yanks make a show about nothing at least we own up to it. High architecture I take it means the same thing, but is also a problematic term with little to no real utility. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Childofmidnight you clearly know little to nothing about architectural theory. Whilst polite architecture is a terms which began to be commonly used in the 19th century, it can encompass the high architecture but also examples of 'low' archiecture, provided it meets the characterisitc elements previously described. Your note that, 'Polite architecture describes a style of mostly 19th century Western European, especially British, buildings constructed for wealthy clients' is compltely unfounded and quite clearly contradicts the rest of the article and the quoted academic theory. If you're going to rely on a quick search of google books with no prior knowledge of the subject (which seems to still be the case)as your basis for drastically altering an article, you should not make the alterations - whatever the shortcomings of the original piece were. PLEASE NOTE, polite architecture does not refer to a particular architectural style, it is a term used to encompass all aesthetically led architectural styles and fashions. On this basis examples of high architecture, as diverse as Bleinheim Palace and the Eiffel Tower can be catergorised as polite, just as a humble new build residential property, which may make incorporate aesthetic design features into its exterior appearance, also contains elements of the polite. Rant over

"a term used to encompass all aesthetically led architectural styles and fashions" Yikes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As something of an architectural dilettante, this article certainly has potential, and I've done some work on it to try to bring its style up to more encyclopedic standards. I think there is really some potential for a good article here. H₂O Shipper 17:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you did an excellent job. I applaud your efforts. I'm ready to move the article to your user space so you can finish the job. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen sturdier articles, but I've encountered the term a few times when an author is getting ready to be condescending about a building whose pretentions are out of keeping with the local taste. Acroterion _(talk) 04:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I appreciate the good humor. Win some lose some. Polite architecture we'll have. I'd certainly hate for a brick or a cinderblock to fall on my head. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 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 23:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Poe[edit]

NPOV issues abound, non-notable biography. MrShamrock (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company per its own web page [27], no evidence of notability for this individual (e.g., no gnews hits). JJL (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources (no sources period in fact) apparent vanity bio/advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references given, and "very successful company" has 8 GHits, including its own website.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 20:02, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ester Goldberg[edit]

SPAMmy article of a failed radio-show character that flunks WP:N; there was a spate of self-generated publicity in Washington so there exists a RS or three, but WP:NOTNEWS. Tagged since 9/07 without any material improvement. THF (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable radio personality, lacks 3rd party references. Orphaned for months. This article and the images associated are the only edits by this editor. Makes me wonder if there might also be COI issues here.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--no sources, plenty of vanity, delete. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails bio, notability, it's advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self promotion. Racepacket (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 02:30, 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 23:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricio Enrique Treviño[edit]

A foootballer who has never played a competitive match - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Livna-Maor (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt these athlete ones are tough. Club America is a big mexican club. This [[28]] shows he made the Mexican under-20s last February, which if not notable in itself is a pretty good indicator he's going to make it into a senior club side soon. I'm leaning towards "keep" -- but am not finding much spanish language press on him, which makes me wonder either A. He flamed out and isn't going nowhere or, B. He's known by a nickname or something.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Speedy deletion 10 minutes and AfD 30 minutes after creation. What was the rush? No wonder we only have one sentence article. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the fact that the author couldn't write more than a sentence about a footballer that hasn't even played one game, is obviously my fault for nominating it for deletion... Livna-Maor (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article once and it wasn't deleted in 10 minutes. But then, I was probably too conservative and took heed of bullet points 2, 4, 7 and 9 from the article creation guidelines. Maybe I should live more dangerously. No sympathy, guidelines are clear, if no notability is established it should be deleted.--ClubOranje^Talk 07:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from anything else, the article's creator has been active for WP for nearly two and a half years, so it's hardly like Livna-Maor was biting a newbie having his first stab at creating an article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. I'm assuming good faith here, but an AfD tag doesn't motivate anyone to write an article. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he's done something that makes him notable. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until someone who cares establishes notability. --ClubOranje^Talk 07:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No even a claim of notability. Kevin McE (talk) 00:21, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Vazquez[edit]

A foootballer who has never played a competitive match - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Livna-Maor (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt these guys all appear to be in the squad at Club America, but haven't made an appearance yet (they're young). I'm not sure how athlete is to be interpreted -- these guys are full professionals for big clubs, but not sure if that counts as having "competed" at the highest level. Hopefully someone with more expertise in these areas will happen along. I know there are a lot of football focused editors.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Vázquez Muñoz played for Socio Águila in the Mexican Primera A (2nd level) during the 2007-08 season (see here). Does anyone know if that level is fully-pro? Jogurney (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link wouldn't open for me. But, I think they play in the league just below the premier division, so it would probably make him notable. Livna-Maor (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, their site is Java-heavy; try one of the links here. Jogurney (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Federación Mexicana de Fútbol Asociación, the top four divisions are fully professional. ~~I don't know whether this is correct or not though. I'd want to see some confirmation of this before making a decision.~~ Bettia (rawr!) 14:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Placeholder comment, pending resolution of above issue. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've recommended in a similar AfD a question be posted at WT:FOOTY --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting resolution of consensus on Primera_División_A beign fully professional. If it is, Reluctant Keep per WP:ATHLETE, else Delete as fails notability criteria per WP:ATHLETE --ClubOranje^Talk 10:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After a bit of hunting around, it appears Primera Division A is fully professional. On that basis and what Jogurney has found, I'm !voting keep as he would satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr!) 14:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Roberto Ortega[edit]

A foootballer who has never played a competitive match - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Livna-Maor (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he's done something that makes him notable. --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article passes WP:ATHLETE as Ortega appeared in one Mexican Primera Division (fully-pro league) match during 2007. He has also played many matches in the Mexican Primera A (which may be fully-pro). I've added a reference to the article. Jogurney (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persuasive. Is it the same person? The RS gives him a surname of Fernandez (with accents!) --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is. The author of the WP article simply left the second family name out. Jogurney (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a page move if the AfD closes as a Keep, as I suspect it will. --Dweller (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second surname is not normally considered part of a Latino person's "usual" name, though - see for example Hugo Sánchez (full name Hugo Sánchez Márquez) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Confusing. I'll butt out, as I'm not knowledgable enough to be anything but confused now, lol. --Dweller (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Spanish naming customs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Moved from Delete, above, per information he's played in a notable match. --Dweller (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have re-opened this debate as there is still one un-struck delete vote -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played at a fully pro level. Could desperately do with some fleshing out though -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:39, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Corral[edit]

A foootballer who has never played a competitive match - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Livna-Maor (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's standard footballer-AfD rationale time - subject fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play at a fully professional level, this article should be deleted for now then recreated if and when he makes his first team debut. Plus no sources have been provided to establish any notability. Bettia (rawr!) 14:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he's done something that makes him notable. --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to www.femexfut.org.mx, Corral has played for Socio Águila in the Mexican Primera A (2nd level). Does anyone know if that level is fully-pro? Jogurney (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - I suggest you post it to WT:FOOTY - someone there will probably be nerdy enough to know without even looking it up ;-) (That's no criticism, by the way - sheer admiration) --Dweller (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting resolution of consensus on Primera_División_A beign fully professional. If it is, Reluctant Keep per WP:ATHLETE, else Delete as fails notability criteria per WP:ATHLETE --ClubOranje^Talk 10:02, 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 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alappallil[edit]

The article, about a "well-known family" name, does not show notability or verifiability. I was unable to find any sources using Google News or Google books to verify any of the article's claims. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--ditto. No sources, no notability. Vanity. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably lost something in translation. The Rockefeller Family is notable, but does not cover everyone named Rockefeller. Here only one person with that last name is claimed to be notable (although no sources are provided.) Racepacket (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable family. Salih (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:31, 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 keep or nomination withdrawn, take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RailDriver[edit]

Article cites single source, contains a copyrighted image, it is over detailed and reads like an advert, there is now mentions of product at Train simulator and Game_controller#Others Jezhotwells (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have rewritten from WP:NPOV, cited with WP:RELIABLE and now ask for this nomination for AfD to be withdrawn. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A general article on train simulation hardware and how it works would probably be appropriate... on the other hand, without sources to claim notability/market share/whatever, an article specifically on one brand-name product is probably not appropriate. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -copyrighted image can be removed, I don't agree that the article reads like an advert - though it is over detailed. References from third parties (ie reviews of the product) have been provided and could be easily incorporated into the article. The main question is one of notability in my opinion, and I cannot decide whether or not this product is notable enough for its own article.Carrolljon (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm venturing a Weak Keep, based on [29][30]. Verifiability shouldn't be an issue, though I don't know that I could assuage notability concerns. --Izno (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen comments elsewhere that http://www.train-sim.com/ is not a WP:Reliable source as it is a fan site with no statement of editorial process. I was hoping the article creator would show up. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:00, 19 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 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep including the image, which is fair use for a product to show what the product is--the layout of a games controller cannot be explained in just words. Products notable in their niche, however small, are notable. DGG (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as presented, does not satisfy WP:V or WP:N. Mindful of what DGG has said, there is a review here [31] and here [32] - I think these pass WP:RS. Marasmusine (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I belive that they are both fan site / forums with no statement of editorial process, thus not WP:Reliable Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here's some more: Model Railroader Magazine, TotalVideoGames, Forbes, gizmag, Boing Boing, Engadget, Kotaku. SharkD (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theres at least one WP:Reliable there, possibly two if you count a mention in passing. Fan sites / forums, etc are not reliable. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the above sites are fansites/forums?! SharkD (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok: I mistook trains.com for trainsim.com, Forbes and gizmag look good, engadget is referring to a different product, kotaku is a forum/blog and just mentions the product by name, boing boing is a blog/forum. If you work the good ones into the article as inline citations that would be good, I am still not sure about notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(contd) The article still reads like a spec sheet and it is still about one product. I'll have another look and see if it can be rewritten in some better way. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! I should have looked more closely. BTW, here's the TechEBlog article Kotaku is referring to. As for Kotaku itself, it is listed as being reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. This is the first I've heard of the others, though. SharkD (talk) 01:39, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scylla (Prison Break)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No real world notability. No references nor trusted third party sources. It's a plot device of a tv series features only in some episodes of season 4. The subject is covered satisfyingly in episode articles and in The Company (Prison Break). Magioladitis (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of tag in the talk page I haven't noticed that this article has already been deleted via AfD and recreated. The difference is that the first article was referring to an episode of the series and this one about a plot device. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The season 4 episode Scylla did in fact air, addressing the concerns of the first AfD. This article should be kept along with all the other episode articles linked to in Prison Break (season 4), and rewritten to focus on the episode. I don't think an article on Scylla, the plot device, needs to exist, but if it does exist it should be under a different name. Baileypalblue (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The AfD is for the plot device and not the episode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Company (Prison Break). It seems to be a pretty major plot device in the fourth season, and from what I can tell the Prison Break series already has a pretty large number of articles on characters and obscure things that aren't notable in the real world. If we want to delete this, there should probably also be an overhaul of the whole set of Prison Break articles; that's not to say that this shouldn't be deleted, but just that if it is deleted, it should be part of a larger coordinated cleanup that might need more input than just this AfD. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This cleanup is in progress. All minor characters have already been merged in a single article and we are now doing the same for the main article. (I am participating in it using the talk pages, etc.) This AfD concerns only the specific plot device and the speicifc article that has nothing to be merged that it's not already in better articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with merging, then, or with deleting if all the useful content has already been merged (either way it's still a merge, just a difference between whether the merge happened before or after I !voted). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:00, 23 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 00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as any such info. is easily handled by further developing the plot summaries at Prison Break (season 4); this page is just WP:SYNTH (e.g., what's the source for "Scylla drives the story for season 4"). JJL (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably could be found, there's lots of comment on the series. But, more to the point, the purpose of a plot summary at wp is to talk comprehensively but concisely about the plot. I interpret this operationally as meaning that if I didn't see the episode, I could learn enough to discuss it with someone who did. The descriptions in the episode list are from this standpoint inadequate and nonencyclopedic. It doesn't really matter how we divide things up, if we write them adequately (not excessively like a fan wiki line by line through the show, but adequately). I think the present article comes nearer -- or, at least, its easier to condense than to expand the ones in the list.DGG (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to The Company (Prison Break) Only plot information is there, and plus the season four section of The Company article covers the subject a little more, last time I checked. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to wherever editors find most meaningful In any case, this should be an editorial decision discussed on a talk page. AfD doesn't make sense, especially since the article will clearly be kept as a redirect at the very least. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:54, 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 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lehrer[edit]

Written by subject himself. Claims to have been suppressed by mainstream scientists, has been banned in the past for sock puppetry and personal attacks (relating to pages Bengalia and Bengaliidae). Notability is doubtful, except that there have been dismissive reviews of his self-published work on the family Bengaliidae that he has proposed. Shyamal (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Delete~~. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Low citation impact. Most widely held book in libraries currently in less than 20 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have conducted an analysis (brief) of the new species discovered, and am now convinced of notability. Changed recommendation to “keep”. Thanks Frank Pais - indeed, the article needs development not deletion. Note: I corrected the indentation of Mista-X recommendation so that it is not missed by the closing admin.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find a thing in any peer-reviewed journals. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - There is a wide wealth of content written by Mr. Lehrer in various journals available on Lexis-Nexis. His academic contributions are highly specialized, and demonstrate a unique knowledge that is arguably not possessed by many of his scholastic peers. We can help develop this article into something beautiful. It mustn't be deleted. Frank Pais (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing is that there are a very large number of people who describe species and notability of species authors is linked to the notability of the species (although species are automatically protected from deletion). Would also note that there are a number of Wikipedia editors who have better publication records and have described new species. If just content in any journal counted, one could produce an equally long list for every university staff member. Shyamal (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - As per above. --Mista-X (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a Google Scholar and found:
- 20-odd articles by A Z Lehrer. Only 1 was cited elsewhere, and only once - and that was in another of his own articles, which he uploaded to Wikimedia.
- This review of Andy Z. Lehrer’s book on Bengalia, which concludes "It must be treated with the utmost caution and circumspection" - ouch!

I think there are 2 reasonable courses - delete, or include the conclusion of the book review, with ref of course. >-) Philcha (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article lacks sources independent of the subject that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 20 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, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable sources to establish notability. It basically looks like a web host for this guys personal bibliography at the moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We recently had a deletion discussion on an article where species’ discovery was the main claim of notability. We kept the article. It seems to me that the problems with this article call for revision tagging rather than deletion. After all, we are debating notability here, not how well written the article is.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is little trouble in supporting the keep of Ludwig Carl Koch. The trouble in this case is that there has not been any substantial species discovery that has been widely cited by third party sources. It is more of taxonomic revisions, and many of the genus names and the new family that has been proposed has been dismissed. (The review is in fact more damning, suggests that the subject does not understand conventions in contemporary taxonomy, the ICZN code etc.) The subject has been waging personal-attacks against entomologists that he thinks are detractors. This is an autobiographical note and there are no reliable sources, nor is there any mention of his notability in any third-party source. This is quite different from the case of long dead scientists. Here is the very carefully worded summary of his work as described by a third-party source unconnected to him http://www.zmuc.dk/entoweb/sarcoweb/sarcweb/workers/Cur_work%5CLehrer.htm and you can decide how many on the rest of this list http://www.zmuc.dk/entoweb/sarcoweb/sarcweb/workers/Cur_work.htm should be considered notable. The most similar case I can think of is actually Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raymond_Hoser but in that case the subject had arguably become notable by attracting media attention which provided "independent third-party" sources. Shyamal (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient publications to show he is one of the major figures in his subject. That other workers in the field disgree with some of his work--or even most of it--is not all that uncommon among systemic biologists. The very object of a major publication in taxonomy (called a "revision" or a "monograph" is to re-arrange all the previous classification everyone else has done. The quote from the review is selective. The conclusion is in full: "Although describing many new species and creating the foundation for a rational taxonomy of a species-rich genus, LEHRER’s work ‘Bengaliidae du Monde (Insecta: Diptera)’ is an incomplete work that masquerades as a full taxonomic revision. It must be treated with the utmost caution and circumspection." One could just as easily have quoted the first part and used it as positive. Presumably this controversy will be judged by the general opinion in the field. Obviously, there's a great deal of editing to do, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume that this takes into account that the suggestion by User:Dyanega "as far as I have been able to determine, all of his publications cited here and elsewhere are either self-published directly ("Fragmenta Dipterologica"), printed by a publisher who has no peer-review requirements ("Pensoft Series Faunistica"), or printed in a journal that has no peer-review requirements ("Entom. Croat.")." (from User:Dyanega on the Talk:Bengalia#Familiarity_with_what_WP:NPOV_means) Shyamal (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it meets the Zoological Code requirements for publication, it's published. This is one of the few fields that does have a standard. Basically the argument against this article is that he is not a particularly competent scientist, but that doesn't make him not notable--this is not one of the things we are supposed to be judging. If we started judging people by the intrinsic quality of their work, afd would be interminable.. DGG (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it meets ICZN criteria to qualify as a published description. But there is still no policy that grants automatic notability for authors of species. The notability per WP require independent third party citations for it. The contents of the article are completely WP:OR. There is little scope of improving this article if there is no reliable source for any of the biographical information. Compare the case of an author (Ramana Athreya) who has described just one species (as an amateur and in a rather obscure journal). Shyamal (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shyamal's research and per Eric Yurken's original reasoning, which still seems sound to me. Not every taxonomical classification imparts notability to the taxonomist; WP:ACADEMIC requires peer recognition of a greater sort than has been demonstrated here. If, indeed, Lehrer is a Galileo unappreciated by modern science, well, 22nd-century Wikipedia can celebrate his sacrifice and curse our ignorance. Willing to change my mind if Frank Pais can show me more notability than currently exists in an article consisting entirely of WP:OR and WP:PUFF, but simply having a publication record doesn't confer notability to me. THF (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete ISI h-index = 4, I see no reliable sources supporting a notable impact on the scholarship of his peers. I'm not moved by the argument that notability is inherited from the automatic notability of his study organism. I know *lots* of scientists that totally non-notable, but have described many new species. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:14, 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 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JHBuild[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reason raised by nominator, and lack of useful context. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:11, 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) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: too much jargon. Alexius08 (talk) 08:57, 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 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Madison Community Cooperative[edit]

Delete. MCC is encyclopeadically non-notable, and this article is constantly being filled with unciteable assertions, OR, references to primary sources, and trivia. It listed a prod tag for three days, and a prod2 tag for most of that. LOL ^thulu 16:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was about to oppose deletion and say that Madison is a big city and the article could probably be cleaned up into something decent. But after looking more closely, it looks like the organization is just run by residents, rather than its own administration, so I think it's probably not-notable, as stated by the nominator. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I usually !vote for the deletion of articles on student dorms and co-residences and the like, but t his seems to be an acceptable combination page. A cooperative by its very nature is run by its members.DGG (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just removed as much rubbish from the article as possible as it may be notable but it was horribly written. Seems to be mostly self-referencing though Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:53, 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) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I'm going to vote 'keep' also here, since it appears that this cooperative does have notability. If anyone has access to their local newspapers, there's almost 15 years of coverage in a dozen or more articles. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 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. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pants Yell![edit]

Flunks even the low bar of WP:MUSIC. Never released an album on a notable label. THF (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything about them online other than myspace, blog postings, and the page from the record label. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:26, 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) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No records on a notable label, and some coverage on Google News, but only one of them apparently somewhat in-depth (and no sources given in the article, as seems to be usual). I assume that if the band goes, so to their albums/tapes. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 02:22, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irasaiah Ilanthirayan[edit]

Non-notable Tamil Tiger, article devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position do not add up to notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reason as above entry. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable high level commander of a very prominent militant organization, the Tamil Tigers. Also, this nomination is a horrible escapade in ignorance driven deletionism.Pectore^talk 22:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article is a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. NYTimes ref has been provided. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

definitely keep. II is the spokesperson of the LTTE and probably among the top 5 tigers as far as media presence is concerned. had 11500 google hits on 18.1.2009 Jasy jatere (talk) 17:37, 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) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced, notable, even important. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:55, 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 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Rwaramba[edit]

Lacks notability, per WP:BIO. Only known for being the nanny of Michael Jackson's children. Note: Grace rwaramba (redirection page) will also have to be deleted. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. THF (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has no relevance. Timneu22 (talk) 20:05, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Oelerich[edit]

Non-notable proffessor. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources turn up. I can tell from some searching that she wrote some books or other publications about early childhood education, published through "Children's House" of Mankato State University, and that she's emeritus from Mankato, but beyond that this fails verifiability. In particular I didn't find anything about her role in founding Children's House, which is the only thing in this short article that resembles a claim of notability. And for that matter, for me to believe that it's significant, I'd also like to see sources for the notability of Children's House itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguably meets WP:BIO, but probably not WP:PROF. Her books seem to be classified as being for a “juvenile audience”. Having said that, at least 10 of those books are currently in more than 300 libraries (at least 6 in more than 400 libraries) worldwide according to WorldCat. See also these Google Books entries.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have just made several improvements to the article – wikified, added refs, highlighted claims for notability etc. It is still a stub.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not so sure that these library holdings indicate notability. We often use these figures when we talk about academic books and then holdings in 300-400 (probably mostly academic) libraries is quite good. However, we are here talking about children's science books, which in case of notability you would expect to be present in many neighbourhood public libraries, of which their must be tens of thousands in the US alone. I'm not sure therefore that 300-400 passes the bar in this case. For non-academic books we often go by book reviews in major publications. Perhaps someoe can find something like that? --Crusio (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Eric Yurken - Power.corrupts (talk) 19:15, 19 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) 23:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this has to be judged as author, not as WP:PROF. Her works are children's picture books, all in a single series Dinosaur Discovery, all about 30 pp. long.. 300 lirarrry holdings is not very much in this sort of material--looking for other children's books on the same dinosaur as her most widely held book, I see many of them have up to three times that figure. Even in books on that narrow a subject, and audience, she come out 13th. [33]. DGG (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is the number of pages in a book relevant for the author's notability? Children's books are by definition shorter than regular novels. Also, please be more specific. 13th in what? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As noted by Mgm, the type of book that she is best known for typically does not have that many pages. The fact that she has so many widely held books indicates notability, in my opinion. Her work is also cited by independent parties. All in all, I’d say this is a keeper.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:04, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Santhosham[edit]

One of several articles created by same editor about minor Tamil Tiger figures. Flunks WP:BIO because not the subject of significant independent coverage from reliable sources; mentions in passing do not add up to notability no matter how often the adjective "notable" is used. So unnotable that his name is unknown. THF (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article was a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention of anything significant he's done. The "foundation stones" thing doesn't convince me on notability; see my !vote at the Appaiah entry for more on that. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the side, a general comment about this whole set of AfDs: from what I have seen so far, some of the individuals are notable and some aren't. It's clear that the editors who created the article think they are all notable. But it would have helped the process a lot if you could have provided sources and information from the beginning asserting that notability (ie, what they have done in their capacity as officers), rather than expecting us to just know what makes a Tamil Tiger notable. A lot of these arguments could have been averted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:08, 19 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) 23:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced, notable, even important. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:57, 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 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lt Colonel Appaiah[edit]

One of several articles created by same editor about minor Tamil Tiger figures. Flunks WP:BIO because not the subject of significant independent coverage from reliable sources; mentions in passing do not add up to notability no matter how often the adjective "notable" is used. So unnotable that his name is unknown. Nothing here that isn't redundant with Tamil Eelam. THF (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article was a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the foundation stone issue could be relevant if more context is provided Jasy jatere (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create a Foundation stones of LTTE article then. These unsourced one line biographies don't merit their own articles. THF (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't say anything about his having done anything important. The "foundation stones" thing doesn't establish notability: if you look at the article, you'll see that his name is only mentioned twice, and he's in a list of 17 people, so it's not like he was the backbone of the LTTE. And in the Tamil Eelam article (the organization he was supposedly a major founder of) his name isn't even mentioned. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the side, a general comment about this whole set of AfDs: from what I have seen so far, some of the individuals are notable and some aren't. It's clear that the editors who created the article think they are all notable. But it would have helped the process a lot if you could have provided sources and information from the beginning asserting that notability (ie, what they have done in their capacity as officers), rather than expecting us to just know what makes a Tamil Tiger notable. A lot of these arguments could have been averted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:05, 19 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) 23:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe merge into some Tamil article. One line article about a Tamil soldier, doesn't seem all that notable (at least not to have his own article). TJ Spyke 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, notable, even important. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:57, 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.