< January 22	January 24 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#U1 (user request to delete a page in his own user space). Thanks for the unusual opportunity to use this CSD code on an AfD, Elm, but the more standard way of doing this is by placing a ((u1)) template on the page you want deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elm-39[edit]

Elm-39 (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Andrew Lancaster. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax Error (film)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created they article as part of the Disambiguation project. There are 3 incoming internal links to it from actors who appear. It's weird that we don't have an article for the director. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article isn't notable. Schuym1 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't an opinion about that. I am just stating some facts. We had three articles wrongly linking to syntax error. I think we best would be to have an article for the director and redirect the film there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know whether this film is notable or not, but I suspect it isn't and since it is a 13 minute short made six years ago, if it is not notable now, it never will be. In those circumstances, the correct solution to incoming links going to the wrong place is to unlink in the source article. Creating a non-notable article is not the right solution. Same goes for the director, if he is not notable, and his film credits are just four other even shorter shorts, then not a good idea to create an article for him. SpinningSpark 00:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Accidents Happen is an upcoming long film (100 min) from the same director. Some times short film directors can be notable, of course I am not sure if this is such a case or not. -- Magioladitis (talk)
Weak delete and request WP:USERFY back to author. I have expanded and sourced the article since its nomination, but other than it being a 2004 Screen Music Award nominee, I can find nothing else that shows notability. Perhaps the author might find local sources showing festival submissions and other awards or reviews? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created the Andrew Lancaster article. I think we can redirect there at least. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Magioladitis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:19, 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 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bacon[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable film. Livna-Maor (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after a reasonably close look, I can't find any news reports or other independent sources about the film; there are some about the incident, but the film doesn't appear to have been widely enough reported on to pass WP:N, and it fails, as Schuym stated, WP:NF. – Toon ^(talk) 00:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't find any notability for the film, but the incident would seem to be notable, with continuing coverage in the media for years after it happened [1]. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme keep In agreement with the suggestion of User:Phil Bridger, I did further sourcing as I expanded the article. The sad events of Aaron Bacon's death as being covered in this film is notable beyond doubt. I found dozens of reliable sources toward the boy, his death, and the subsequent events, investigations, and litigations. It is terrible that in an untimely death a person can be them found notable. The film chronicling his death as an indictment of "boot camps" for children is itself notable per guideline, for the person and events it covers. There will doubtless be much more on this when the film is released. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The boy himself may in fact be notable (but covered by WP:1E); the article is about the film though, and notability is not inherited. Unless you can provide sources which cover the film itself, it doesn't meet our guidelines. The sources in the article cover the boy's death, not the film. An article about the child is a completely different matter, which is not what we are discussing. – Toon ^(talk) 11:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect:. WP:ONEVENT says ,`"Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." With respects.... the boy has not remained a "low profile individual" and has been covered in a whole series of events. His death, while certainly tragic in and of itself, became "notable" per wiki standards because of all the surrounding and subsequent repercussions which led to the entire series of well-documented and notabale events being covered by the film. Event 1, Abuse at a "bootcamp". Event 2, Death at a "bootcamp". Event 3, Investigation of a "bootcamp". Event 4, Indictment of 7 individuals. Events 5-11, the 7 different though related trials. Event 12-XX and more, Congressional investigations of all such "bootcamps". And more and more and more... Everything related to the boy and his death has had (so far) 14 years of intense coverage in reliable sources. The article IS about a film covering the boy and ALL the subsequent notable events. If it were about someone who yelled something at the president and then was heard from no more... THAT would be a One-E. This however is a film about continued and still-growing notability over 14 years... the notability a young man developed and continues to develop accross dozens of States and around the world. The boy and the events pass WP:GNG with flying colors. The production itsels is notable per WP:NFF which states , "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". With respects, the as-yet-unreleased film screams past WP:N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half correct. I agree that that the event, this boy's tragic death, is notable, and that the best title for the article is his name, because that is what most people would type in when looking for information. I still can't see any notability for the film. I could make a film on my mobile phone about any obviously notable event, but that wouldn't make the film notable. I haven't been able to find sources for the notability of the film, and if nobody else does the article needs to be reworked to be about the event, not the film. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to clarify, I didn't mean to say that he fails WP:1E, simply that were the article actually about the person, the guideline would have to be considered; in this event, the article is about a film which itself doesn't seem to pass the guidelines. – Toon ^(talk) 20:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to closing Admin since the nomination there has been 18 footnotes added, including the New York Times (2) and the Los Angeles Times Ikip (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the sources are about the subject of the film. Schuym1 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there were no notable subject, there would be no film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)][reply]
    - You're right, but that doesn't make the film notable. Schuym1 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please read the criteria of Notability of article content. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Tanthalas39 pointed out that the sources that you mentioned don't mention the film. I read through one of the articles that you mentioned, and it didn't mention it. Schuym1 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Correction: a trivial mention here. Schuym1 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And significant coverage here. Schuym1 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep far exceeds any notability requirments. Google has 176 hits on Mr. Bacon.[2] I am troubled by the lack of effort before this nomination, as Wikipedia:Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." WP:INTROTODELETE, "Remember that deletion is a last resort." Thank you. Ikip (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Do you realise that just one of the references cover the film? This is an article about the film, and the sources prove notability of the person, not the subject at hand. I think it's a little disrespectful to try to keep an article about a film on the back of coverage not of the film, but of the tragedy involving the child. This article needs to be deleted, and in its place an article about the person should be put. This deletion is not a reflection on the notability of the child himself, and doesn't prejudice the creation of an article actually covering the person. I find the arguments which manipulate the tragedy of Aaron Bacon himself as sickening, quite frankly. Delete this non-notable film and replace it with an article covering the child or the events. The sources are being completely and absolutely misrepresented. – Toon ^(talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am sorry that you are "sickened" by my speedy defense of the film article, but when the subject himself was seemingly about to be dismissed as non-notable, it became absolutely paramount to immediately address that specific issue before he became filed and forgotten. I appreciate that you now seem to agree that the film is of notable person, and only decry it not having major coverage. Even the director himself is not seeking flashy press coverage as that might denigrate the subject matter of the film. Since it is not yet released, it falls under WP:NFF and must be judged under different standards than Star Wars or Steel Magnolias. Beyond the one article you accept as significant, Outside (magazine) [3], Heal, Troubled Teen Industry, Isaccorp.org, Grace Lutheran Church, Boylesoftware, ICSA, Teen Advocates, and more... all speak of the film. Their "mentions" are a bit more-than-trivial, but less-than-significant. My point here being is that the director and production company are not jumping on the bandwagon of hype. Perhaps they wish to honor the boy's memory. The film must be judged differently from a majorly financed blosckbuster... as it is not intended to excite or amuse, but to educate and enlighten. Per all applicable guidelines and the notability and historical aspect of the the film, it passes WP:NFF and which specifically states "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"... which passes us to WP:N which allows that the offered sources show beyond a doubt that the subject matter is "worthy of notice" and that this subject's worthiness is supported by "multiple independent sources", and specifically meets the criteria of Notability of article content. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologise for my assumptions above, I think it's a case of crossed wires; you perceived the arguments for deletion as judgement upon the person, not the film, and I judged your defence as manipulation. It's an emotive subject, that's for sure. I looked at a few of the links, which don't seem to cover the film in-depth, which would be required to pass the film notability guideline, or evidence of a major accomplishment etc. I'm still unconvinced that the film itself is notable enough for inclusion per our guidelines, but I'd certainly like to see an article about the boy on here. – Toon ^(talk) 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I appreciate the adamant nature of the above keep votes, and there are many valid points. However, the salient question here is, "is the film notable"? Whether or not the subject himself is notable is truly irrelevant here. The subject is notable, as the laundry list of references recently added point out. This indicates that there should most definitely be an article on the subject himself. The argument above that it is the "production itself" that is notable is incorrect, in my opinion. Per WP:N, this article should be deleted unless far more robust coverage in multiple, reliable sources is located. Tan | 39 00:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of peace[edit]

I can't find a lot about this DVD release, apart from enthusiastic blurbs on its own website. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MOVIE at all. Current article also happens to be a copyvio, but that's another story. ~~SIS~~ 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD G12 as a blatant copyvio or under CSD G11 as blatant advertising. Your choice. --Dynaflow babble 23:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, my choice was to bring it here to see if it belongs on WP in the first place. The copyvio or advertising problem can be easily solved, but if rewriting (or recreating) the article is a waste of time because the film doesn't meet WP:MOVIE to start with, why bother? ~~SIS~~ 23:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found what might be a review here (pay to read), but that seems to be it. I'm going to have say any justification for keeping it under WP:MOVIE will probably be tenuous at best. --Dynaflow babble 23:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about copyvio - Since ownership of the website in question has been asserted, that removes the "blatant" from "blatant copyright violation", and predicates CSD G12. The article will be deleted after 7 days regardless of this AfD unless someone proves that permission to release the text under the GFDL is presented. – Toon ^(talk) 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, I'm not seeing the kind of coverage sufficient to indicate notability, and I do have access to the full text of the article linked above and several other databases. That really is it. Barring some Arabic-language source, I don't think there's a good rationale to keep. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharifah Mazlina[edit]

No assertion of notability. Livna-Maor (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's apparently the first Asian woman to reach the South Pole [4]. There are a good number of articles about her at Google News. Zagalejo^^^ 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 13,600 ghits. SpinningSpark 00:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First aisan woman, althought is a first, is not that worthy. Are there articles for the first men and woman of every continent? L-Tyrosine (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Worthiness is not an inclusion criterion. We can have articles on the first man and woman of every continent if they meet notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting the WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Jfire (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been shown in the usual way, by substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge The source is reliable but this article is destined to be a one or two sentence stub. It doesn't merit a separate article at present. Perhaps its better to merge with polars explorers? --Artene50 (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it destined to remain a stub? There's ample material available. Zagalejo^^^ 19:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem 666 word biography[11], 308 word article on the journey[12]. That's far more than a stub from just two of the 13,600 ghits mentioned above picked more or less at random. Did you actually look at any of the potential sources before you made that statement? SpinningSpark 21:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been shown by coverage in independent, reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:31, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tara (actress)[edit]

Non-notable actress, has never appeared in any notable films. Livna-Maor (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. With no last name it's a bit more difficult, but can be done: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Jfire (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Abecedare for sorting out the confusion. Neutral on the question of this other Tara's notability. Google results are nigh on impossible to distinguish from other Taras, and given the length of her career, the most likely sources are probably print. Jfire (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article mixes up the biographies of (at least) two actresses: The Assamese actress who was born in 1944 (IMDB) who may or may not be notable; and the much younger Kannada actress who won the National Film Award in 2004 and is definitely notable (listed as Thaara on IMDB, although I guess that is a misspelling and an grossly incomplete entry). So we need to figure out which person we are talking about before !voting keep/delete. Abecedare (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article seems to be on the Assamese actress whose imdb id is 2719616. User:Jfire screwed it up by pasting info on the Kannada actress (National Award winning) to establish notability. The Assamese actress Tara can also be considered notable as one of the movies she acted in Halodhia Choraye Baodhan Khai was the national award winning movie (best film) in 1988.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, GDibyendu. I have created a new article Tara (Kannada actress) and moved the fruits of Jfire's research there; and added the bit about Halodhia Choraye Baodhan Khai to the Tara (actress) article. Don't know if that is sufficient, but hopefully someone will find more information before the AFD closes. I have flagged the article for rescue, since this is a undercovered area on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No doubt notable. The actress acted in some award winning films like -Sandhyarag (Rajat Kamal award, 1978, Cannes Film Festival), Dr. Bezbarua (National award winner (Regional category)), Ronga police (Presidential silver honorary award), Mak aru Morom (Certified film of merit), Aranya (National award winner (Regional category)), Sakuntala (Presidential silver honorary award), Kolahol (Movie screened in Indian panorama) See this link for verification--Footage (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 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 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decent Community[edit]

In my mind, this is a speediable article about a website that makes no claim of importance, however a speedy has already been declined. The reason given was the links on the talk page, which are unconvicing to me -- the best link was the number of readers, which is not a lot for a notable blog. Gsearch and gnews search coming up with lots of false hits, but nothing in the first several pages showing notability. Going the AfD route because the declined speedy tells me this isn't uncontroversial. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree the article as it stands is speediable, there is no assertion of notability. Of the three links on the talk page, the first one is another blog. Come off it, blogs are not WP:RS and you certainly can't use one blog to reference another one. The Blues and Lasers link only mentions Decent Community because the band are mentioned on the blog. There is nothing to indicate notability, or worth, of the blog itself. The third link does not mention the blog at all on the page linked although I did not trawl through the whole site. As for the site traffic, Alexa ranks it at number 6,136,376 and going down fast with a share of just 0.000007%. SpinningSpark 01:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original speedy nomination. -- role^player 02:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saya Sayantsetseg[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:N. Livna-Maor (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She played Carnegie Hall, and the article appears to have been drawn from [20], which makes some claims of notability which probably pass WP:MUSIC (awards, international performances). But I'd like to see some more solid sources. Jfire (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty much what I was about to say. People have paid $60 to see her play at Carnegie Hall and that goes some way towards notabiity in my book. SpinningSpark 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A solo performance at Carnegie Hall is plenty notable. Not only that, she's the first musician from Mongolia to do a solo performance there. And, she's a professor who organized a biannual piano competition in Spain that's been going since 1999. Sufficient to keep the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:31, 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 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fabulous History of Men and Roses[edit]

The only sources that I can find in a Google Search is Poop Report (one of the links in the article) and the article itself. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No doubt the nom's search is complicated by the fact of this actually being two seperate documentaries... In the Name of the Rose and Sitting on the Throne, combined as a series under the longer title. I made a slight adjustment to the article, but I am not up to doing anything more for a French poo-poo film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some searches and found no non-trivial coverage in third-party sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and I agree with everything here. Laura (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health systems management[edit]

Health systems management. I cannot see how this can possibly be notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of types of employment. This is just indiscriminate information. I prodded it. The prod was removed (fine) with no comment regarding why (less fine). So now we should open it up to community scrutiny and consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles on Electrical engineering and Acting for instance. Any notable profession is eminently suitable for an article. This one is widespread and often in the news, often with political controversy. There are many books on the subject and endless academic and political reports. There is much that could be covered in this article. It is unfortunate that the article currently does none of this, but it can grow. SpinningSpark 02:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep Poorly crafted article, but could fairly easily be completely rewritten into something useful —G716 <^T·_C> 15:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Only If Of course the article itself is horribly written and it hurts my profession to even look at it. I believe it could grow into something meaningful if the creator or other editors are willing to add more info and reference to the article. Dumaka (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Only If I will continue working on improving the article if it is not deleted in the next several days. I am hoping to interest others in doing so also. The main reason I wanted to put this page up on Wikipedia in the first place is because of the ongoing confusion in the healthcare profession between health systems, health information systems, and health informatics. There is also considerable confusion between equivalent master's degrees (i.e. CAHME-accredited programs with titles such as MHA, MBA, MSHA, MS, etc.). Dumaka and others - specifics about what you think needs to be changed about the article would be helpful. Thanks. Angarman (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks a lot better now. I vote that we should definitely keep it. Dumaka (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"For management of health information systems, such as electronic medical records, see Health information management."

This article does not necessarily address PHI, HIS, or EMR. This is more of a systems approach to how healthcare is managed and addressed in the 21st century. The reference to HIS should not be merged with this article as to the fact that they have two separate meanings and address two different issues in healthcare. Dumaka (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was added by G716, 15:41, 24 Jan. The addition may make sense; I remember disambiguating 'health information management' from 'health systems management' for students at the undergraduate level on several occasions. Angarman (talk) 22:40, 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 14:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation Portable 2[edit]

This is a HOAX. The only source cited is a spoof article in SarcasticGamer.com (dated 6 Jun 2008, so it's hardly hot news). The comments below the article include:

"I love it! It had me going for a second… until I started to read it. Then I started laughing. Very nice!"
"Wow, until about a paragraph after the jump I thought it was real, but FUNNY especially the analog sticks part"
"you really had me fooled, cool post"

...etc. etc. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:CRYSTAL. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 01:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Not a hoax. A couple of sources [21], [22], and [23] establish verifiability. However, I would not oppose a merge into PlayStation Portable until more information comes up. MuZemike 17:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of these can be considered a reliable source; none can even name a source for its rumor. The first "...has learned from a reliable source" but it's dated April 2006 - even less hot news than the source for the article! The second is headed "Rumor", and quotes "publishing sources", and a denial from Sony. The third is headlined "Sony PSP2 rumors debunked, probably not for the last time." JohnCD (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wait until Sony makes an official announcement about their next handheld. Versus22_talk 17:58, 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 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of residences in EastEnders[edit]

Nominating on the request of User:147.70.252.54. Unreferenced original research listing buildings in a popular UK television series. Some Wikipedians would refer to this as "listcruft" or "fancruft"; either way, there is no indication of the buildings' notability or significance outside the EastEnders universe. I agree with my work colleague on this. I am also nominating (with the same rationale):

B.Wind (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "List of Residences" as failing WP:V, with no references to prove the assertions, as well as lacking real-world notability, and therefore failing WP:FICT. – Toon ^(talk) 00:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual residences and buildings are not, other than a bare handful, notable or generally important to the plot of this show, hence I see little point in listing them. JulesH (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LIST ensure that each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced. There would probably not be much difficulty with Albert Square or the Queen Vic, but 3a Albert Square? Can't find a news item that ones mentioned in. And the article has a trivia section - that's ironic. SpinningSpark 02:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For this long-standing prime-time British TV soap opera, sources clearly exist on this material (for example [24]). Plenty more I am sure. Surprised to learn that the fictional locations are apparently not integral to the show and its cultural significance. Twenty-four years using the same locations tends to have the opposite effect on a soap, and its audience, I believe. Overall quite astonished to find these articles listed here. And I am absolutely not a fan of the show. --DaveG12345 (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's only really Albert Square which has any real-world notability, having entered common parlance; the houses themselves are not notable in the real world. – Toon ^(talk) 02:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Absolutely true - but I don't think a list of residences/buildings/inhabitants associated with a notable fictional work like EastEnders needs to guarantee for itself a "real-world notability" for each and every listed residence/building/inhabitant, does it? In just the same way (for example) that List_of_Beverly_Hills,_90210_episodes does not need to guarantee "real-world notability" for each and every incident in each and every episode it lists (and it lists rather a lot of them!). What I'm trying to express is this: I think the "bricks and mortar" way of documenting this particular soap opera via these list articles is perfectly in-keeping with the bricks-and-mortar content of the show. There isn't (to my knowledge) a corresponding "List of EastEnders Episodes" article... (personally, I hope not!) But (perhaps) - that's because the specific syndicate-able episodes (à la 90210) are less vital than the characters and the (more lasting) buildings portrayed in something like EastEnders... just perhaps...? :) --DaveG12345 (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment episodes are not elements of fiction, whereas the residences of a soap that you think is more notable than another are and require real world notability per the guideline WP:FICT; If every element of a show should be covered in an encyclopaedia just because the show itself is notable, you end up with truly ludicrous amount of coverage. – Toon ^(talk) 18:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That link is to a BBC site, the makers of the program so it is a primary source and cannot be used to establish notability. And I would further point out that even this BBC map does not show my example of non-notability above, namely 3a Albert Square. SpinningSpark 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Agreed. The issue of the notability of "3a Albert Square" is not satisfied by that citation of mine. Does that mean no list article can include "3a Albert Square" though? Is that really the issue here? I just wonder out of curiosity. (Incidentally, the BBC is used as a reliable source for very many items, including BBC-related items, right across WP - that's maybe because the BBC has an absolute and legally-enshrined mandate to scrupulous impartiality?) --DaveG12345 (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Personally, I wouldn't require strict evidence of real world notability if it could be shown that having a list of these locations was important for understanding the plot. The plot itself is clearly notable, and therefore I feel any article necessary to understand it to a reasonable depth is also necessary. But I just don't see the importance of this list. BBC sources can be used; a BBC source on a BBC-related article is counted as self-published, so can only be used within certain constraints (see WP:SPS), but isn't completely outlawed. What they can't be used for is to show notability. So, to answer your question, a list could contain "3a Albert Square" as long as (1) that list about a subject that was shown to be notable using non-BBC sources, and (2) there was a BBC source for the address (even a primary source, such as a reference to an episode of East Enders). JulesH (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah - and I'm sure such sources exist (there have been books and books written about this show) - unfortunately, I do not own any of them, so cannot help very much. :( --DaveG12345 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certain buildings and residences are important to EastEnders, such as "The Arches" (scene of many an important storyline), and these items should and could have references. However, where "Freezerland" or "Harts Chemist" (the article says it has only ever appeared on a label!!) came from, I have no idea - both articles need severe pruning and referencing (and possibly merging). Certainly, I think it would have been better to discuss such articles with members of the EastEnders WikiProject, and/or tag them the improvement tags, before such long-standing articles are deleted out of hand. Stephenb (Talk) 13:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Arches isn't even in this list, it's about residences only. Places like The Queen Vic, Albert Square and to some extent The Arches have a lot more real-world notability than any of the houses in the show, as they are commonly understood by much of the population. The houses on the other hand, aren't integral to the understanding of the show even, and have zero relevance or notability in real life. – Toon ^(talk) 15:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response There are two lists up for deletion! "The Arches" is on the list you haven't looked at! Stephenb (Talk) 09:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, good spot, I completely missed the second list for some reason... damn stack noms. – Toon ^(talk) 11:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the person who made the initial request to post this at AfD. This article is still completely lacking in citations and demonstration as to the notability of the buildings outside the EastEnders universe per WP:V and WP:FICTION. I have yet to see anybody offer a citation outside of the BBC (which is hardly independent) showing the significance of any of these outside of the fictional world of the series, no reviews, no books about the series, nothing except for a BBC.com map, which states most of the entries on the list trivially at best. The handful that are notable on their own (I trust that they meet WP:V and WP:FICTION, but I'll have to check them at a later time) already have their articles, which means that if we eliminate those that cannot be cited or verified, we are left with only the ones that have the articles in the first place... and this list would have to be deleted as it would fail WP:LIST. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete LISTCRUFT. Yes, I said it. The topic is too broad for an encyclopedia entry. Verifiability can only go so far as the topic must be suitable for an encyclopedia. Completely fails WP:LIST. Themfromspace (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These lists are neither unreferenced nor original research; the primary source is indicated at the bottom of each article: Map of Albert Square; and the show itself constitutes a primary source as well. Descriptive information that can be verified by anyone from primary sources without any special expert knowledge is not "original research" according to policy. It also cannot "fail WP:FICT", as that proposed guideline is currently being drafted to say nothing on the subject of lists (except to refer to the list guidelines). Neither does it "completely fail WP:LIST"—this guideline does not require every item on a list to be individually notable (except in general for lists of people), and in no way are these lists "too broad", as there are clearly a finite and manageable number of locations in Walford in the EastEnders universe. And the list provides a useful navigational purpose, which is one of the main purposes of lists. At worst, the information could be merged to Walford and Albert Square, but there is no reason to delete valid and verifiable information like this. As EastEnders gets a vast amount of coverage from independent sources, such as regularly published periodicals like Soaplife and Inside Soap, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that much of the information in these lists could be verified independently by those magazines, which would indicate enough notability for the separate topic of the buildings and residences in this long-running and popular soap. Of course the contents of these magazines are not available online, so we couldn't simply prove it with a Google search; it would require extensive research by someone who has access to these sources. DHowell (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, it would be quite easy to comply with WP:V, then... All that would be needed are the citations (I believe that both those periodicals you named have web sites, by the way) and the demonstration of the buildings' significance outside the EastEnders universe - those that already have cited standalone articles are not the problem here. It's the ones that don't. As of this writing, the number of citations for either nominated article is zero. B.Wind (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, rather than jumping straight to nominating them for deletion, why not tag them for improvement? And/or help with that! Stephenb (Talk) 09:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DaveG12345. 19:33, 27 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 delete. Tone 19:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danforth Carhouse and Bus Garage[edit]

Unnotable Bus Garage L-Tyrosine (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. No assertion of notability. Livna-Maor (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete. A bus garage? And it's not even open any more. Very unlikely that we can find much in the way of reliable sources about that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 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. Tone 19:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birchmount Bus Garage[edit]

Unnoatable Bus Garage L-Tyrosine (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. No assertion of notability. Livna-Maor (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. A bus garage? Very unlikely that we can find much in the way of reliable sources about that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eglinton Bus Garage[edit]

Unnoatable Bus Garage L-Tyrosine (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. No assertion of notability. Livna-Maor (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Delete as non-notable. There is no indication that this is notable for any reason, a google news search provides no coverage; a couple of mentions in passing but that is all. The only reference gien in the article is the official website. – Toon ^(talk) 00:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. A bus garage? Very unlikely that we can find much in the way of reliable sources about that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akatsuki Daze[edit]

Non-notable fanfic. Wikipedia is not for stuff made up on day. Farix (Talk) 22:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to exist at all. Doceirias (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 - pure self-advertisement for some WP:MADEUP stuff that likely violates WP:COPYRIGHT as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't fall under WP:MADEUP, but it is self-published, without reliable sources, and fails WP:BK like a failing thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP isn't a fan site, you have to prove what you write (fail), you to prove that is notable enough (fail) & you write for any potential readers not just for fans (fail). --KrebMarkt 09:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:47, 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 00:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leftosphere[edit]

Stub article on the dictionary definition of a not very notable neologism. --Dynaflow babble 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that nominating an article for deletion within three minutes of its creation ([25][26]) is a little premature. Blogosphere was a neologism at one time, too; this term isn't brand new coinage, and has seen wide usage by popular bloggers (indeed, by notable bloggers; the article cites examples). What is the relevant notability guideline, and what is gained by so rapid a nomination of the article? Simon Dodd (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:NEO#Articles on neologisms and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article's viability is precarious on both grounds, but bringing it here to AfD rather than PROD'ing it allows better vetting of the decision of whether or not to delete. --Dynaflow babble 22:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote keep, but I concede that it's dubious under WP:NEO (I hadn't seen that guideline before), and will go with the consensus when one emerges.Simon Dodd (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered entering this into Wiktionary instead? --Dynaflow babble 22:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that I wouldn't know how. If it's more appropriate there, so be it. Or, for that matter, if the article would be better merged into blogosphere, that's okay with me, too.Simon Dodd (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more or less the same deal as it it here, at least as far as the interface with the site goes (see wikt:Help:Starting a new page). --Dynaflow babble 22:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Even if expanded to be more than a dicdef, I think it fails WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki per JohnCD. If this ever becomes a notable enough neologism with lots of references in secondary sources (the fact that some conservative bloggers use it is not really sufficient) it would be easy to recreate it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Loughlin, Esq.[edit]

Promotional article (possibly self-promotion) about a non-notable lawyer by the same editor who have initiated the similarly promotional John Montalbano (which is now prodded) and Biomechanical Expert (now a redirect after being prodded). This article was prodded, prod seconded by me and removed by originator of article. Note the site repeated in the external links. B.Wind (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sufficiently notable for inclusion based on sources I could turn up. Promotional/advertisement tone concerning. If he did develop such a movement to use Biomechanical Experts, he probably would be notable if sources proved it, but as it stands, not notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11. One quote in a trade magazine does not create notability. If the article survives, move to Sean O'Laughlin (CEO).THF (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, self-promotional. TJRC (talk) 17:10, 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 to keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranormal Skeptic (talk • contribs)

Patrick Mimran[edit]

[27] returns 118 gnews hits, all non-english. [28] Returns about 17,000 ghits, mostly non-english. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom's search for sources. The sources shown in Paranormal Skeptic (talk · contribs)'s Google News search confirms the notability of this French artist. Having non-English sources is not a valid reason for deletion. ~~Two reliable sources in the Google News search that I am referring to are this from L'Express (Google translation here) and this from Magazine Fragil (Google translation here).~~ Cunard (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming keep after invalid searches for sources were made. Cunard (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom and Cunard. Any artist with a monograph by Paul Ardenne is notable.[29] Please withdraw the nom to allow speedy keep and saving using up any more time. English sources are preferred, but not obligatory: see WP:NONENG. Ty 12:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I can't tell if the hits from google are even talking about the same person. Also, the article states he has done several things in the States, but no news mentions of said events are made. I am unable to determine from the information searchable if notability is in fact determined, and would welcome an expert to the subject (I am not). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Google translation links I cited above are clearly about this individual. The Wikipedia article says that he is "a French multimedia artist". The two translation links I cited are both about Patrick Mimran's art interests, such as his art purchases and his book about art. Cunard (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Am I missing something here? All of the discussion above, including the searches, seems to be about Paul Ardenne, not Patrick Mimran. The sources linked by Cunard don't even mention Mimran. This Google News search seems to show likely notability, but I'd like to understand exactly who we are talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The searches I did were done by using the nom's original search for sources in the nomination statement. I've struck out the sources I've cited and agree with you that Patrick Mimran is notable. This Google Books search also returns a number of results about the artist Patrick Mimran. Cunard (talk) 22:21, 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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 07:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mummybot[edit]

Not quite incoherent enough to qualify for CSD'ing, but non-notable and silly just the same. --Dynaflow babble 21:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a hoax. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 21:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Definitely a hoax. A google search returned usernames, and a philosophy website. "Mummybot schism" returned only this article.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Codswallop. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Delete under CSD G3 as (rather odd) hoax. – Toon ^(talk) 00:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as both hoax and nonsense. I genuinely have no idea what the intended subject matter of this article is. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because, in the article's own words, it "defies explicit definition," let's not define it. •••Life of Riley (talk) 04:53, 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. Notability has been apparently established. Could anyone include those reviews in the article? Tone 14:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Pocket Media Player[edit]

Fundamental reason to delete is that it fails notability. It is also completely unsourced, as the two blogs used as references are unreliable. The article has had few major edits in the last year so it is unlikely to improve over the next year. The product is discontinued, so it is unlikely to suddenly gain notability or new sources. Cleanup tags for four months have failed to bring improvement. Miami33139 (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 21:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability grounds.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notability is demonstrated by winning Smartphone & Pocket PC Magazine's Best Software Awards in both smartphone and Pocket PC categories in 2005 and 2006. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 05:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Link please?--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I somehow forgot: 2005 Pocket PC Awards, 2005 smartphone Awards, 2006 Pocket PC Awards, 2006 smartphone Awards. This review also describes it as "the best, free multimedia player for both the Pocket PC and the Palm OS platform". --Paul_012 ^(talk) 13:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TCPMP perfectly meets notability guidelines as there are plenty reviews of this software: http://www.smartdevicecentral.com/article/TCPMP+071+Palm+OS/213454_1.aspx, http://www.treocentral.com/content/Stories/760-1.htm, http://justanothermobilemonday.com/Wordpress/2006/10/15/review-coreplayer-corecodec-strikes-back/, http://www.mobile-review.com/soft/2007/core-player-s60.shtml. Netrat (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
!Vote changed to keep: per 4 of the reviews (not Wordpress because it isn't a reliable source). Passes WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likewise.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul_012 et al. decltype 19:02, 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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 07:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dafydd Ifan[edit]

Obviously a hoax.

No relevant Google hits, and my knowledge of Bulgarian football is good enough to assure you this guy doesn't exist. We don't have Welsh footballers here.
Quick check of his "current club"'s website reveals he's not part of the squad.
With so many goals claimed, he'd be a superstar by now. If a player had scored 22 goals in 25 matches in 2007–08, he would have been the A PFG's top scorer that season, or at least very close to it. And he would have been a Welsh international with that prolific goalscoring.
There is no WAGs Boutique in Bulgaria.
The misleading way the author's using external links is intended to make the article look referenced, which it isn't.
Does this even have to stand an AFD? Todor →Bozhinov 20:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Doesn't WP:CSD#G3 cover these? --Finngall ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if it's an absolutely clear case, AIUI. This isn't clear enough, as you have to do research to find out it isn't true. JulesH (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and suggest an admin considers WP:SNOWing this one. JulesH (talk) 21:39, 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. Tone 14:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 6ps of luxury marketing[edit]

Non-notable marketing model. Article fails to demonstrate significant, third-party coverage, and simply seems promotional of a particular brand marketer's idea. This also should be considered in light of Wikipedia:NEO#Articles_on_neologisms. --Dynaflow babble 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC) --Dynaflow babble 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G12 (blatant copyright violation) or G11 (blatant advertising), though I suspect the former. Going to the link to "Winsper Luxury", you'll reach this --- "Thank you for your interest in our white paper, '"The 6P's of Luxury Marketing," A New Model for Considering Consumers’ Buying Behavior for Luxury Brands'. Please fill out the registration below to access this paper." Since the company requires persons to register to read the "white paper" they clearly don't want to simply share it with the world on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 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 00:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic aces[edit]

This page was deleted three times yesterday, so I tagged it as not notable again. But, another user removed that, as it asserts some notability. TheAE talk/sign 20:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Full Tilt Poker. My guess is it fails WP:BIO but I'm not familiar with the world of online poker so can't say for sure. If he is, his info should be in the article about the site he plays on. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 21:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Brian Townsend. The deletion of this page was brought to my attention this monring. I am a member of team Cardrunners, and my credibility can be found on my own personal biography page on Wikipedia under the search title Brian Townsend or Sbrugby. I assure you the soon-to-be new member of Cardrunners, aka Magic Aces, aka David Tran, is a significant figure in the poker industry and should remain on the encyclopedia for reference. As for my significantly more prominent popularity, it is becuase of my appearance on GSN's High Stakes Poker for a brief episode. All members of Team Cardrunners can be seen as figure-heads and embassadors to the world of online Poker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.99.208 (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC) — 99.245.99.208 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete — this seems to reek of self-promotion/vanity. Besides, the sources doesn't seem to be about the subject of the article. (Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the article supposed to be about David "Magic Aces" Tran and not Brian Townsend?) MuZemike 17:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and salt due to the constant recreation of the article. Make whomever wants to recreate it again go through deletion review to bring it back. MuZemike 18:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. [30] (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 23:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeTree[edit]

Non-notable and lack of verifiable and reliable sources 16x9 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are reliable sources about this one; there's an article on it on novell.com already linked in the article; there are multiple feature articles on linux.com[31][32] and a refereed conference paper describing its approach.[33]

Comment Ooops I missed those. About to withdrawal my AfD and add them to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16x9 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 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 17:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgeroot[edit]

Non-notable and lack of verifiable and reliable sources 16x9 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not turning up any reliable sources here. JulesH (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 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:SNOW. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ImpressCMS[edit]

Non-notable and lack of verifiable and reliable sources 16x9 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This piece of software has verifiable notability, as I demonstrated by adding half a dozen reliable sources to the article. It has also won an award. If more sources are wanted, they can easily be had. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 21:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per LinguistAtLarge's improvements. Reliable sources added to article more than demonstrate notability of this software. JulesH (talk) 21:54, 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 delete. Tone 19:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HP_Network_Node_Manager[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/HP Network Node Manager

Totally non-notable, no references, no links, nothing. Fowartehlluz (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Three sentences and a redlink does not an article make. Kparsons08 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google returns nothing but links back to HP. Obviously a notable company, but definitely not a notable product. Could be merged in as a line-item in the company's article, I guess, but nothing that warrants keeping here. Sammael 42 (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:28, 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 14:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digitalus CMS[edit]

Software is not notable lacks any source and is a single sentence.! 16x9 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing any non-trivial third party reliable sources in a google search. JulesH (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be non-notable to me. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 22:02, 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 merge to Cultural references to Samson. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samson in popular culture[edit]

Non-notable trivial dumping ground for anything related (or closely related) to Samson. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appearances of a notable biblical character in notable cultural works should be described. There is ample space for an encyclopedic article to develop from this one by giving a history of media portrayals of the character and noting any significant influences the character has had on other cultural works. Certainly, a lot of material can be trimmed from here (e.g., the song with three lines that reference Samson, and the "new metalcore band") but there is a core that should be retained. JulesH (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samson, surely.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cull it and merge it to Cultural references to Samson. There are things here that need keeping. There is trivia here that needs to go. There is an existing article for cultural refereces, why does it ALSO need a pop culture article? Miami33139 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this indiscriminate trivia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With Cultural references to Samson. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cultural references to Samson. There is not room for three articles - this one, [[[Samson]] and Cultural references to Samson. I think it overlaps most strongly with Cultural references to Samson so merge there. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful into Cultural references to Samson. It's a good topic, since Samson has appeared in many books, movies, etc, but we just need a single article. Zagalejo^^^ 05:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cultural references to Samson, as I see no clear division between the topics of these two articles. Or is the Cultural references to Samson article only supposed to cover "unpopular" culture? DHowell (talk) 02:19, 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 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community Hospital School of Nursing[edit]

I believe this article does not meet notability requirements, and is unlikely to ever be expanded. The prod was removed, but by an editor who seems to have had no particular reason for it and has been removing a lot of other prods across the wiki (discussion). Basie (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Basie (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – doesn't appear to establish notability, as present. TheAE talk/sign 20:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak weak Keep. I appreciate the work of wikipedia user: Basie. Regarding this article, as I have no knowledge of this school, why it might be notable, or who has been to this long established school, I sent an email to the school asking for it to weigh in on the discussion to establish notability via third party sources. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: virtually no content (and none of it sourced). Only potential source listed is EL to their own website. Thus no indication that it meets WP:NOTE and no reason to keep (what little is there currently could be recreated in about two seconds flat if substantial third party sources turn up). Wikipedia is surely WP:NOT a repository for short unsourced stubs on the off-chance that they one day might prove to be notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Saul[edit]

It is verifiable from the sources that this person did murder someone, but notability is not shown, unless all murderers are notable by default. The WP:ONEVENT guideline advises against such articles. This is a local event, and sources are mainly the local newspaper. SilkTork *^YES! 19:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nom says, no clear notability is established, and per WP:ONEVENT, it's doubtful any ever will be. KaySL (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unless it was Princess Diana he killed, fails WP:ONEVENT. TheAE talk/sign 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/~~keep~~ (creator). The nom is based on the false premise that he's notable because he murdered someone. Actually, he's primarily notable for the fact that he escaped from detention 3 times in Vanuatu. His escapes led to major changes in the Vanuatuan penal system, including the country's only detention centre being transferred from civilian to military control. He's not notable because of the murder—it's for what happened afterwards. The majority of the article is about the arrests and escapes, so I thought I wrote it in a way that would demonstrate that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Adding more sourced material would establish notability for that. Is he the only person to escape that prison? Is 3 the most times anyone has escaped from there? And more about the changes in the penal system incited by his escapes. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 21:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree—my main point is not that the article is necessarily perfect, but that the original reason for deletion is flawed. It may well be appropriate to delete, but if we consider it let's at least consider the issues you raise, and not the "crime cruft"-type ones presented as the reasons for deletion, since they are a peripheral part of the article. If a rationale based on the article's real content were presented, I could even support deletion if it were convincing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the person is notable for escaping three times is not demonstrated by the sources. No source mentions three escapes, though there is awareness of two escapes after the second escape by the words "again" and "twice", though the local paper is (naturally) more interested in the bulk escape. The sources as presented indicate a possibility of an article on the Port Vila Correctional Service Centre which could mention the breakouts, as the most interesting aspect of this case is that the prison does seem rather lax in security. SilkTork *^YES! 16:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you said about an article about the facility perhaps being more appropriate. I'm fine with deletion—I know someone is writing an article on the Saul escapes and the prison; after it comes out I can re-assess what type of article (if any) would be most appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable common crime cruft.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:30, 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 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambio (CMS)[edit]

Non-notable and lack of verifiable and reliable sources. still alpha software. 16x9 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding any reliable sources about this. I'm also suspicious of whCMS, which this is apparently a fork of. JulesH (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't seem to find any reliable sources to support a claim of notability at this time. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua CMS[edit]

Non-notable and lack of verifiable and reliable sources. Vanity page! 16x9 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see any reliable sources about this CMS. JulesH (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like it doesn't meet notability requirements at this time. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 21:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myopia Myth[edit]

The article is a WP:POVFORK from Myopia, promoting and arguing the ideas from the book Myopia Myth. Ronz (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valueable and Enriching The book is written on the therory that close work can cause myopia. This is a valid scientific theory and the book is a major contributor to it and should be included in wikipedia under a distinct article. The book and it's theory ia an "Alternative theoretical formulations" please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 20.1.18 decision made to allow this kind of content on wikipedia.-Junsun (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete: Lacks notability by any Wikipedian set of criteria. I do not see evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. The article does cite some such reliable sources, but they discuss causes of myopia in general (dismissing, among others, "close work" as a cause). They do not mention, directly or indirectly, "myopia myth", the author in question, or his claims, and as such do not establish notability. MastCell ^Talk 19:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a little confused; is this article supposed to be about the book, or about the theory proposed by it? Clearly it is hard to have an article about the former without at least going into some depth about the latter, but the article as it stands enters into arguments about the validity of the content of the book using references that are not about the book, but rather about aspects of the theory that is espoused by the book. This seems to me to be a clear case of original synthesis. That said, I believe a valid article could be written about the book, and that this article with the original synthesis removed would be a good base for that article. There are sources that have been written in direct response to the book in question, including some scholarly articles (e.g. [34]) that directly and explicity refute claims made by this book. It seems, also, that it would be reasonable to have pages about the theory that myopia may be caused environmentally (which there is plenty of scholarly discussion of) or that pinhole glasses are useful for treating myopia (also widely discussed). The only problem with this article as it stands is that it brings all of these concepts together, in a single article, which is not appropriate because of the synthesis issues. JulesH (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see this article makes only passing mention of Rehm's book, as one of three sources suggesting that spectacle use should be avoided. Taemyr (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being swamped with unencyclopedic content is not a reason for deletion, but the failure of the book to attract significant coverage from reliable sources is (WP:BK). Mere passing mentions do not provide the coverage necessary before we can write a good article on the topic. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure of what to make of this. The book is cited by the American Journal of Optometry 1 and the association is listed with the Dept of Health and Human services 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not considered a "Content Fork" of the myopia page for two reasons. I quote from the Content fork article: "Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary.". On the Myopia page, the sections about causes of myopia and prevention are long enough already and adding another view and explaining the opposing sides to that view in detail with a collection of reliable sources would make the section and the whole article on Myopia excessively confusing. The second reason is that the theory that myopia is preventable presented in the book on Myopia Myth is quite distinct from consensus and thus it does not belong on the consensus page on Myopia in any great detail. People looking for mainstream view on Myopia should not labor through details about a theoretical proposal that is still being tested. However, for those people who want to read more about the Myopia Myth point of view, they should have a chance to do so in a distinct page.

Article Enriches Wikipedia Lastly, I think one very important function of an encyclopedia like wikipedia is to host a collection of well supported information, even when it covers a scientific theory under debate. A lot of the over 1,000,000 articles on wikipedia are "stubs" and/or cover things much less notable than the article on Myopia Myth but no editor even bottered to challenge their notability because they are so unimportant to catch any attention. If every article and "stub" less notable than Myopia Myth is removed from wikipedia, Wikipedia might never reach the millionth article mark that it did. An article about a book that is not a bestseller takes up very little space on wikipeida and is as justified to exist as all the articles that are "stubs". At least this article's existense has sparked some immediate interest which indicates it's potential value for coverage. Having an article that follows an actively researched area of science from a neutral point of view provides valueable information and enriches Wikipedia. (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)--Junsun (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article under discussion is Myopia Myth, not Environmental causes of Myopia. There is a substantial difference. Taemyr (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -Atmoz (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All those hard working scientist, published so many research papers on the alternative theory of environmentally caused myopia which Rehm proposed. None of them seems satisfactory? Here is an independent source that analyzes the book: [35] another source I proposed is the reviews on Amazon.com. Under the reasoning of those who want to delete this article, wouldn't most articles about specific local high schools and middle schools be considered original research? I don't think many of those articles have any references beside original researchat all.--Junsun (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: Extensive revisions have being made to the article to remediate the issues noted in the talk page. Please read it again before commenting.--Junsun (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in many ways worse off now, since it's currently an article on the neologism "The Myopia Myth". Taemyr (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plainly non-notable LeContexte (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the sources cited in support of the theory fail to mention the book, which surely is a good indication that it is non-notable. The theory itself may be notable (whether or not it is correct), but that would surely belong on the myopia page, and does not need a page of its own. Anaxial (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Myopia as the title is a useful search term and we have numerous useful citations here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Merge to Myopia as per Colonel Warden and Junsun there are many numerous useful citations here, meeting WP:N. Ikip (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please identify some of them on the talk page here. Multiple editors have pointed out that the article doesn't have such references. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The objections to the citations above are that they do not support an article on the book/title Myopia Myth and, having looked around, I tend to agree that this is not good as a separate topic. But the citations regarding research upon the development of myopia in children are useful content when considered for the main article upon Myopia. Merger is therefore the appropriate way of saving the best of this material per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what I'm mistaken about. I was and still am requesting that the links be identified. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken in your claims about the statements of other editors. An obvious example of useful content which should be preserved per WP:PRESERVE is the first citation - an account of a study of the progression of myopia in children. Such content would be useful in the myopia article, irrespective of the myth concept, which is a side-issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That study is primary research and attempting to using it in a general article on myopia would very likely foul WP:OR and WP:MEDRS. Myopia is a well-studied topic that has an abundance of good secondary sources (reviews, textbooks). No need to cite individual studies on a couple of hundred school children. I don't see any citations that would improve myopia. Colin°^Talk 16:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Primary research does not help with the notability concerns, nor has anyone pointed out any better references. Further, I've already brought up the issue in Myopia that the article is relying too heavily upon such references, in violation of NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave that citation because it was the first and shall return to it. But if one inspects others, we find good tertiary sources such as footnote 8 which is a general account of Myopia provided by the American Optometric Association. It seems quite wrong to claim that such a source is of no value to us. Note also that this source says, inter alia, "The exact cause of nearsightedness is unknown...". Since this reputable source indicates that the matter is still uncertain, it seems appropriate to cite examples of good recent research which indicate the lines of current research and the provisional findings. So, given that our policy is to preserve useful material of this sort, deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really feel certain references might be useful on myopia, then copy them to the talk page of myopia and see if someone wants to use them. WP:PRESERVE is about keeping article content, not citations. I can find a whole bunch of (almost certain better) citations my merely searching PubMed for recent reviews on myopia. Keeping citations is not a reason to keep an article or insist on a merge. Colin°^Talk 23:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing contributor Page has undergone extensive edits (several dozen) since this article has been put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the edits have resolved the WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:N concerns. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New references I found these refeences that give overviews of the book and Rehm's theory and concept of Myopia Myth. [36][37][38][39][40] At least some of them are suitable to be used as references on the section about Myopia Myth#Rehm's Book.--Junsun (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how these links to listings could be used as references in any way. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. Push this article to be about the book and only summarize what the myth is to remove OR concerns. Numerous sources cover the book just fine and it seems to be the center of the myth itself so the myth can be summarized in an article about the book and criticism are usually a part of book reviews. Is "the myth" that notable? Perhaps but for now show the relation to the book first then consider if a seperate myth article is warranted or if even a subsection on myopia is needed. The med project can be helpful when it comes to this issue as well. -- Banjeboi 11:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Myopia#Theories. Taemyr (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In sufficient reliable sources from which to build an article of any size. A few reliable sources have been found that mention the book but that isn't enough. The title is not a useful search term to be worth keeping (plain old "myopia" finds the WP page just fine). Citations not worth keeping IMO, but the talk page is the place for those if anyone disagrees. Colin°^Talk 23:36, 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 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QCubed[edit]

Blatant advertising? Cssiitcic (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be. Definitely too technical for a general audience. Delete in present form as possible spam. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're just trying to get some objective information about the framework in. There's a very similar article about competing frameworks - CakePHP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CakePHP). -- alex94040, QCubed core contributor.

QCubed is a PHP5 framework. It's a fork of the Qcodo PHP5 framework. The site is not spam. The framework is being used by several people. -- marcosdsanchez, QCubed core contributor.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.101 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as Spam. A look at the links tells all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Appears to not meet notability requirements at this time. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 21:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ mainly on grounds of notability. If I knew what they were talking about, I might change my mind - either way. I hope their code writing is clearer than their explanation. Article is not very spammy - just a bit too enthusiastic. Could do with more outside references. There may be some - quite a few ghits, I think Peridon (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Current position Neutral as they're translating it into English... Will wait and see. Peridon (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ now I can understand enough about what they're doing. Needs more reliable outside linking yet. Peridon (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with marcosdsanchez, now comprehensible. Peridon (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article to attempt to address these concerns. We're definitely a real product with as much right to be here as CakePHP, and while we are currently attempting to raise awareness, our userbase is already at 300+ developers -- VexedPanda, QCubed core contributor 68.145.111.83 (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still find it hard to decide what the article is about. I'm not completely stupid computer-wise - I used to program in COBOL many years ago (I could even understand the MicroFocus manual...). I would like an explanation of what's what in English rather than have it all in jargon. This is a problem with articles (and manuals...) written by experts. Peridon (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still spam. Just in a prettier can. No-one "has a right" to an article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made another pass on the article to make it less "geeky" and more appealing to the general audience. alex94040, qcubed core contributor. 16:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.12.195 (talk)

The page has been cleaned up substantially, I believe the main reason this was flagged is because of the links and the way it was worded, all of these have been changed to be more informative to the general public. There are 1,000 of frameworks just like QCubed, which all have a similar wiki articles, and are even more techy than this one. Basilieus, QCubed core contributor JonKirkpatrick (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article was edited to be non-technical and almost everyone can undestand it now. marcosdsanchez • Msg 21:45, 25 January 2009

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathbout[edit]

Article about a Syrian tribe/family. Might be notable, but article creator is a member of this family and has included his own biographical information in the article. Cited sources are the author himself, a family web site mostly in Arabic, and a general article on Syrian tribes that doesn't mention the family at all. Author and his anon IP have repeatedly removed maintenance tags without addressing the concerns. --Finngall ^talk 18:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. If he wants to make a page about his ancestry he can do it in his userspace, or preferably, one of the many websites dedicated to genealogy. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:NN. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Operating Platform[edit]

"DOP is a new generation software platform with intelligence." So says the article. And so new that Google finds only 13 articles with those words in. Non notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. db-spam and db-context both apply. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:09, 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 speedy deleted as a blatant copyright infringement (CSD G12). --Malcolmxl5 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Show up award 0X[edit]

Seems to be an award held by a specific organization. I doubt this award is notable, in addition it has no independent sources at all. On top of that, it appears to be a conflict of interest seeing as the article creator is the initiator of this award. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyvio http://www.frizz-frankfurt.de/reusch/showup.html Andreas ^(T) 19:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Andreas. TheAE talk/sign 20:31, 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 no consensus to delete, indications of consensus to rename. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglic languages[edit]

This page is not quite an invention of wikipedians, but it is just about. In essence it is a wiki-meme whose survival algorithm is that a small group of Scots particularly patriotic about Scots wish to avoid implying that Scots has anything to do with English, instead taking the contruction Anglic from the Latin word for English. Not good enough. Searching it on google minus wikipedia gets circa 200 hits almost all of which are conspicuously derived from wikipedia or else Scots language promotion sites using wikipedia, while google books yields 1 solitary hit, and that isn't about this topic.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google scholar find zero valid hits for this term. Looie496 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly re-name. It is certainly not a "wiki-meme" or a fantasy of Scottish nationalists that there is more than one language descended from Old English: Old English, Middle English, Yola, Scots, and English all have currently valid ISO 639-3 codes and thus are considered separate languages by a Wikipedia-external source. At Ethnologue, the group is called simply "English", so if we follow their lead we could call it English languages rather than Anglic languages. We could even call it Languages descended from Old English if need be, but I do notice that the request for an ISO 639-3 code for Yola refers to it as "Anglic". —Angr 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The name is a wiki-meme. That English, Old English, Middle English Scots and Yola are all more related to each other than any to Frisian is obviously a point of fact, but this shouldn't obscure the former point and neither should it obscure the fact that wiki is supposed to be based on WP:RS rather than the inventive inclinations of its editors. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me ask, could a wiki-meme (anglic languages) generate 9 million results on google? And if so, wouldn't this be a more less notable item, as a wiki-meme? --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It could in theory, but doesn't. As I pointed out to you below, there are approximately 113 unique non-wikipedia hits, a large portion of which are conspicuously derived from wikipedia. No-one will ever be able to argue that "Anglic" is the or even a common way of describing languages/dialects descended from Old and Middle English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which is an argument for renaming, not an argument for deletion. Unless you want to argue that the very concept of a group of languages descended from Old English is OR invented by Wikipedians, there is no reason to delete this article. —An gr 22:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, 'tis not quite as cut and dry as all that and the category and name are not completely divorced. Obviously if a group of varieties have a common ancestor, they can be categorized together, but it doesn't mean it is good encyclopedic practice to OR in order to do so. Insular Germanic would be better than current title as it is at least marginally attested in scholarly material, though as in the case of Anglic allowing such an article to exist would be lending undue weight to a marginal term. Less formal titles are possible. List of languages and dialects descended from Old English would for instance be fine, but wouldn't include Old English and would be pretty pointless given we've already got a number of overlapping list articles on certain linguistic categorizations and on theories masquerading as objective scientific categorizations. E.g. such forms are already listed on Anglo-Frisian languages and West Germanic languages and List_of_Indo-European_languages#Germanic_languages. The only other point an article such as that would have would already be covered by History of the English language. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I see that the issue seems centered on the maintenance of academic categories, it isn't just a typical spurious deletion; the nom seems good, I strike my keep. It's very interesting, I know something about this, certainly not enough to contribute to the discussion. If "anglic" is a popular concept, it will develop and grow in and of itself. Have a nice day. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ No vote. (See above)--Mr Accountable (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC) --- The Boston University School of Theology seems to take Anglic languages seriously; + 9 mm results at google search: anglic languages + keep as per User:Angr. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the "as per User:Angr", but what you linked to is just a copy of the Wikipedia page. —Angr 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I noticed that, but the Boston University School of Theology digital library has taken the effort to put material from Wikipedia's 'Anglic languages' and 'Germanic languages' on a page about their curriculum. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, actually now I am not sure, http://digilib.bu.edu/ does not produce a webpage, though it comes up on the first page of Google search: 'boston university school of theology digital library'. Hm. At any rate, 'anglic languages' did produce over 9 million search results. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a copy. "Anglic languages" btw gets 150-500 hits (it varies everytime I do it for some reason). One on google books [41], which is the result of a particular sentence construction rather than anything to do with the topic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I just tried again at plain old google search, and I got 627,000 results this time for 'anglic languages' and 42,200,000 for 'anglic language'. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That however has got nothing to do with the topic, as you're just getting hits for other things and for this thing with wikipedia hits. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really. The term is used dozens of times at various academic-related sites and somewhat-academic-related sites.with frequency, at various academic sites including sites related to linguistics and semantics, and also at various Scots-related and UK history-related sites. And it certainly does have something to do with the topic.....If this has a wiki-meme nature to it, well, it has been picked up by academics 'round the world. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Nope. And I have to correct myself, roughly 113 unique hits (check for yourself), many if not most of which are derived indirectly from wikipedia. We can just about end the idea that this term is established outside wikipedia and focus of whether to rename or delete. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I got 517 w/o clicking 'include omitted results' at google.com here in USA. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have to correct myself as well, I can't really say that the term is an academic commonplace. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I think the term has a future, I'll leave my keep as is. Cheers. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, but this isn't a vote; 'tis supposed to be a discussion. If you don't have any decent arguments your vote should, in theory, be discounted (whether it will or not in practice is another matter).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't want to be a bad voter, but here's a modification of your search that yielded 113 results; by simply searching "anglic" lowercase a, and subtracting wikipedia.org the same as your quoted search, the search at google.com in the US yielded 956,000 results. Searching the same at google.uk, yield = 290,000. Wikipedia subtracted. Please try. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually "anglic" -wikipedia.org yielded 188,000 results, but as a discussion participant I can't agree that anglic and anglic languages are a wiki-meme. It sounds like something, actually. Article is well-written as well. ~~Keep.~~ --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright, AfDs aren't the place to teach you how to do google searches. Suffice to say "anglic" doesn't equal Anglic languages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Omitting the '"anglic" -wikipedia.org' google search results from consideration makes the nom seem contrived. "Anglic" as a web presence seems nascent. And I don't appreciate the tone of your comment, it seems derogatory. Please observe some decorum. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nonetheless, you clearly don't know how to do appropriate Google searches, nor are you actually doing the research that is appropriate for AFD. Counting Google hits is not research. The numbers mean nothing at all, as anyone who knows how they are generated will tell you. Research involves actually reading the things that one's search engine turns up. You don't even need to get past the first five results on your Google search — one of which is clearly a work of science fiction, describing a fictional language spoken in the far future, and another of which is a 1930s spelling reform that never took off — to see that your search results are pretty irrelevant to this entire discussion. Your contributions to this discussion have actually had nothing at all to do with the viability of anglic languages as an encyclopaedia subject, and have helped AFD not a bit. Please learn how to do appropriate Google searches, and start doing research rather than meaningless counting of hits. Uncle G (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps what you're trying to say is that in this case, the results of the google search count research were not very conclusive. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I strike my keep anyway based on the academic foundation of the nomination.--Mr Accountable (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No. What I'm trying to say is what I actually said. What you did was not research. It was using a generated number that has no useful properties, and that means nothing at all. I repeat, because you clearly haven't learned it: Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per all of the very interesting discussion above. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Delete - It seems pretty clear from the evidence above that the term itself isn't seriously established outside wikipedia and it's mirrors/offshoots. However i agree with Angr that there is a place for an article that deals with the various English languages. siarach (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I first came across this nomenclature in the 1970s while pursuing an interest in comparative linguistics, so although Wikipedia may well have made the term more widespread on the internet, I believe that it does (or did) have an academic non-internet existence. For instance here is a reference to an article predating both Wikipedia and the WorldWideWeb.

1985. The Anglic family of languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics and Philology, 2.1.1-4

No doubt others could be found if someone was prepared to do some rather tedious research, trawling through journals of comparative or historical linguistics.

On a separate note, the fact that some people believe that it is only used by those who wish to disassociate Scots and English is something that could probably be added to the article, (providing that a citation for it can be found at any rate). However it doesn't seem like a good reason for deleting the article. After all we have plenty of articles for concepts used by special interest groups of one sort or another, and in principle this would just be one more. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no relevant hits on google book or scholar, something which tends to affirm what I've stated, i.e. that its non-wikipedia use is marginal at the very best. The fondness Scots enthusiasts have for the term is pure OR by me (though its appeal should be obvious). This is clear from my experience seeing the places it is present on the internet, my knowledge that Scots-loving nationalistic writers (including historians) like to do other such terms, like calling early medieval Northumbrians "Anglian" or "Anglians" in order to pretend they aren't English, and most importantly the users who spread the term on wikipedia (maybe you can affirm this, being as you are an active admin in the Scots wikipedia). It was no coincidence that this nom saw the reappearance of the wiki campaigner I call the "German anon", who has campaigned relentlessly for Scots on wikipedia for years and who suddenly reappeared to try to give the term more credibility. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Ross raises a telling point, I think. It may or may not be true that "its non-wikipedia use is marginal at the very best," but it could be difficult to prove that. What I think Deacon of Pndapetzim does establish is that its non-wikipedia use online is marginal. While this is indicative that the term is marginal, it is not conclusive. The standing of those who use the term also has to be considered, even if they are only a handful. If they are a handful of recognised experts on Scots English or English dialect generally, then the article should be kept. Alternatively, it could be added to the English language article (which includes "Anglic" in its classification box), with a redirect from here. Compare the articles on Tagmemics and eucatastrophe, neither of which would be viable apart from the high standing of those who coined the terms (Kenneth L. Pike and J. R. R. Tolkien respectively).

If Derek Ross has access to other material on the term Anglic, then it would be good to cite it in the article. It is not implausible that a term with reasonable currency in older literature (pre-Internet explosion) might fail to show significantly online. Some older academics of my acquaintance have staunchly resisted becoming part of the computer culture.

For the article itself. If the subject is a viable one, then the article is pretty much what it should be—a short exposition of the term itself, with comments on its use that go beyond the scope of a dictionary entry. It doesn't attempt to hijack material properly belonging to an article on English language and/or dialect. Nor does it represent "Anglic" as a standard or broadly accepted term for the concept. It represents it as a term used by those who, whatever their motivation, want to emphasize the distinct nature of particular forms of English. The use of the term in the classification box of the English language article should probably be considered tendentious. But this article has its own sociolinguistic validity. Koro Neil (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its presence in classification boxes is good demonstration, I may point out, of the power of a wiki-meme with a hard-core of ideologically motivated proponents to destroy the relationship between wikipedia articles on the one hand and wiki policies with the body of recommended sources supposed to be used on the other hand. Google books and google scholar contain a reasonable proportion and cross-section of mainstream scholarship, recent and traditional. "Imbellic cautustration" has the same representation, and that's a term I just made up. That I have proven its representation online is marginal does not mean that offline representation is high. It is strong evidence that offline representation is marginal. It is the only credible evidence that can be presented in an AfD nom also as each contributor can verify it (as well as see a fair representation of how much it is used). I have also asserted that use of the term from my own experience is almost non-existent, and frankly I don't think clutching at straws to find an excuse to keep the article or name is in line with the spirit of wikipedia's policies. It is not widespread practice to categorise these languages below Anglo-Frisian, but if it is done "Anglic" is not the term. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:52, 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. No point in userfying this... Tone 14:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gusteris[edit]

A Google search on 'Gusteris' turns up no information about this lizard. I'm wondering if this article is entirely made-up. Brian Kendig (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after further inspection, I'm guessing it's an article the user translated from Greek. The user created two bird articles he said were translations from Greek, and other editors turned them into redirects to the bird species in question. But from the information in "Gusteris", I can't determine what particular lizard is the subject. - Brian Kendig (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be a salamander rather than lizard, but regardless, this article should not exist without sources. Looie496 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I don't see the hurry to delete. The author previous wrote articles that could be linked to existing articles and it's rather likely this is another case. Instead of rushing to delete, we should give them a chance to improve the entry or give further information. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written by User:WarrioRSupremE, who appeared from January 27-29 2008, created a few articles which all (but this one) have since been turned into redirects, and hasn't been seen since. - Brian Kendig (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources cited, and when claiming its rarity, sources are necessary for its validity. Benjamin Dominic (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not hits on Google, nothing shows up in searches of web pages about Greek lizards. While it may be real, there is insufficient information to determine what it actually is, and what (if anything) it should be redirected towards. Somewhat reluctant delete, but it seems the best option. Anaxial (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all lizards are reptiles, not amphibians. Under current taxonomy, there is no overlap between the two classes. B.Wind (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Pepper[edit]

Non-notable local politician (City Councilman, County Commissioner), who once unsuccessfully ran for Mayor. kelapstick (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability weakly meets WP:BIO criteria, could be stronger if refs are added. Cincinnati is a major city ("Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.") and his election creating the first Democratic majority in 40 years is significant ("The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.'" ). twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 19:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure that his local offices establish notability, but someone who narrowly lost an election for Mayor of a major city is surely notable for that alone. There should be more source citations, though. Kestenbaum (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may meet notability requirements, but does it really? If we were to put every councilperson of the top 50 cities in the United States, that's an additional 2500 articles. Is this necessary? I really don't think a every councilman of major cities should be considered encyclopedic. Quod erat demonstrandum 3.14159 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. County commissioners in large urban counties are almost certainly notable figures. - Eureka Lott 17:08, 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 redirect to Monarch Airlines (1946-1950). –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Wilson[edit]

Questionable notability Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC) 17:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Utterly fails WP:N. KaySL (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Query How about the airline and its mergers? I don't know American airlines. Monarch rings a bell somewhere. Peridon (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then. Thanks for the info. I must have been thinking about the British one. Peridon (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have founded Monarch Airlines (1946-1950), which later morphed into the large Frontier Airlines (1950-1986). (Another Monarch Airlines is an unrelated British company.) Unsure whether this is sufficient notability to warrant an article. the wub "?!" 18:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Frontier Airlines (1950-1986), where he is mentioned, for the moment. I cannot find sufficient sources to stand up a page that meets WP:BIO. However, he plainly did play a part in the history of US airlines. If the Monarch Airlines page is recreated in a non-copyvio form the redirect can then be retargeted there. Smile a While (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per emerging consensus. KaySL (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Monarch Airlines page wasn't actually a copyvio and I've asked that it be restored. If it is, I suggest Redirect and Merge a shortened version of the bio. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 19:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Monarch Airlines (1946-1950). Smile a While (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect sounds good to me. the wub "?!" 00:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Minor notability, rather than NN. I have added links and categories. The fact that the article had a citation was not apprarent before I started. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Monarch Airlines (1946-1950) per previous arguments. --Triadian (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. People eat curious things but this one has some recognition... Tone 19:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crisp sandwich[edit]

Delete non-encyclopedic WP:OR article presenting the author's opinions on puttig crisps on sandwiches. Mayalld (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was going to say delete before seeing Sandwich#List of regional sandwich styles and in particular Chip butty. If this gets deleted, then there are a lot of other types of sandwiches that need to get deleted as well. -Atmoz (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The article is newly created and lacks sourcing. However, in searching around, it appears to be a regional snack sandwich, and many emntions can be found such as this one. Give the article some time for improvement by way of sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the creator's comments on it's talk page. Can be re-evaluated at a later date. Pyrrhus16 18:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I have added a dozen sources and cleaned up the article. This is a notable type of sandwich. If you want more sources, look here: gbooks "potato chip sandwich", gnews "potato chip sandwich", gnews "crisp sandwich", gbooks "crisp sandwich" (Seaching for "crisp sandwich" is problematic, by the way, because it also returns the adjective crisp as well as the noun.) LinguistAtLarge • Msg 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though I wouldn't eat such sandwich, the article seems encyclopedic. Wandering Courier (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely encyclopedic, not a hoax, well sourced, notable.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete however well sourced there really has to be a level of "For god's sake this is an encyclopaedia!" It's indiscriminate garbage. We'll be having the lettuce sandwich next and saying "Gosh that's notable and verifiable" too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to be cantankerous here, but if the lettuce sandwich is notable (per WP:N), and that notability is verifiable via reliable sources, then it should indeed have an article. Or is there some policy I am unaware of that supports your argument? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 06:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think your sudden creation of the lettuce article shows that the "but" in your sentence is valid. Articles such as these make WP a laughing stock. Please go ahead. Also read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I had the feeling you would create the new article. Looks almost WP:POINT to me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith on my part, as I am on your part. My explanation for creating lettuce sandwich is simply this: I created it after you made me aware of it and I realized is was notable (in my opinion). If you disagree on the notability point, feel free to bring it to AfD. I have no problem with the community as a whole deciding if it's notable or not. No hard feelings, if we disagree a bit, that's fine with me too. :) LinguistAtLarge • Msg 15:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not every sandwich filling should get an article, but this, like Chip butty, has enough of an element of being a cultural icon that I'd say err on the side of keeping it. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Salt & vinegar crisps and hot, spicy salami between halves of a bun, along with a glass of cider on a hot hot day, are a treat. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improved article. As Icarus says, a cultural icon. the wub "?!" 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I followed an odd looking link in American Gangster (film) and found that the weird sandwich I had briefly wondered about is actually well known. No big deal, but I find this kind of cultural background information useful. Rl (talk) 11:38, 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 17:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shintai kempo[edit]

Delete non notable martial art Mayalld (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability for this new, local martial art. JJL (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only documentation is in Swedish, and even that doesn't establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder: While English language sources are preferred, they are not required. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aficionado Films[edit]

Seemingly NN film company. Article created yesterday; all blue links resolve back to existing article on other subjects. Also repeatedly posting an article on a future film. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent notability (and fails WP:CORP). I have changed the aforementioned red links to what they should be called (i.e. Eunuch → Eunuch (film)). Only references are the IMDB profile, corporate website and something that is the equivalent to an online Yellow Pages add (now removed).--kelapstick (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Wow. One would think with as much as they have done, there might a mention somewhere about the company. I have rarely seen so many redlinked films or tv shows... and it is written with more WP:ADVERT than many. The SPA author has his work cut out for himself. If this is to be kept, it needs a major overhaul. I did find a bit about the company in conjunction with its founder and its productions [42], and was interested in the covergae in monsters and critics, but one has to wonder sometimes just how the small independents can ever hope to achieve the coverage of the big boys like Sony or Warner Bros. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:43, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DotCMS[edit]

Vanity page for Non-notable product. 16x9 (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wouldn't call this a vanity page; certainly, some of the wording needs to be altered to a more encyclopedic tone, but the subject is no less notable than, say, Sourceforge.net or other such information repository and content managing software. KaySL (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is it notable, it doesnt make a claim of notablity and lacks sources. The article list a basic feature set (which is the same for most CMS). Additional the article was created/mostly edited by a single purpose account, likely someone who is has a WP:COI. 16x9 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE - It's notable as a full-scale content delivery system, much like the backend behind Sourceforge, as I mentioned previously. Sources obviously are lacking, but that can be dealt with in ways other than AFD'ing the entire article. Also, it's very dangerous and unreasonable to assume that merely because a single editor created the article and also made significant contributions to it that they have a conflict of interest. If you can find evidence that this is so, then again the proper channels already exist to deal with this, other than deletionism. Cheers. KaySL (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE- No you did mention before. X is not notable just because it is "Big" but rather "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Your points are taken.16x9 (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no reliable sources writing about this particular CMS. The current article is a bit on the promotional side. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A lack of sources shouldn't be grounds for immediate AFD, and the promotional tone can easily be removed by a rewrite. KaySL (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Does appear to be used by a number of major groups [43], notably the Sydney Morning Herald and several universities. This article briefly mentions it being more popular than Microsoft SharePoint for university sites. the wub "?!" 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - your first link is WP:OR unless you find an article talk about how major group use this system. 16x9 (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seams at any rate to be more notable than the usual CMS article. Reliable source review here. Won an award here. JulesH (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet notability requirements. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 21:55, 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, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dump digging[edit]

Although it appears that some work has been put into this article, it's really a non-notable essay that violates WP:OR. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm trying to bring this up to Wiki standards. The practice of Dump digging is real and valid but unfortunately I'm still learning how to format the text on the page. I'm having particular difficulty referencing the recent news media article by Nancy White in the Toronto Star, http://www.thestar.com/living/article/575703 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberrific (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The practice of targeting rubbish tips and other waste disposal sites in archaeological digs is well-known. I'm not sure if we already have an article or section on this topic; if so, this should redirect to it. Otherwise, this is as good a location as any - the usage is clearly sourced. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be notable enough, a newspaper story and a couple websites are cited. An alternative would be to merge to Treasure hunting or something like that. This is not Archaeology. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per AlexTiefling and Steve Dufour. Clearly a well-established and notable archaeological practice. KaySL (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is clearly about treasure hunting and not archeology. Edison (talk) 18:25, 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 merge to Physical attractiveness. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugliness[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per the previous deletion discussion, ugliness as a concept is one that is covered sufficiently as the antonym of Physical attractiveness. There is nothing here but a broad definition, and it's not clear there's anything encyclopedic to say about the concept that isn't already covered elsewhere. Powers ^T 16:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Physical attractiveness. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's previously been deleted, and it's little more than a WP:DICDEF, not an encyclopedic article. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't require deletion to revert the article back to this. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article could be written on ugliness. I recently saw a book on it (I think called "Ugliness") in a bookstore. However, this article is really just a dictionary item. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The place to discuss reverting back to the redirect is the discussion that dealt with turning the redirect into an article in the first place: Talk:Beauty/Archives/2023/November#Ugliness. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has never been more than an essay that quotes Webster's Dictionary. That's what "Wiktionary" is for. Some competent articles have been written about Beauty and, as Metro points out, [physical attractiveness]] (of which "ugliness" would be a degree). If someone wants to write an article that explores psychology and literary references to what physical characteristics repulse others, that would be a worthwhile endeavor. But this is crap. Mandsford (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Physical Attractiveness. Although not much, this article does have some integrity, so it would be a bit of a waste to just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8333631 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Physical Attractiveness or Beauty. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'and Redirect to Physical Attractiveness or Beauty. Warrington (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way the system works, those are would be different things. Keep means that if people type in Ugliness, they get the article called Ugliness. Redirect means that if they type in Ugliness, they will be redirected to a different article. "Merge" means that the content of Ugliness would be added into another article, and when people type in Ugliness, they would find the information in a new place. Delete, of course, means that typing in the word Ugliness would return the phrase "Wikipedia does not have an article by that name." Mandsford (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, in that case.Warrington (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick "Spar" M'Cormack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Frederick "Spar" M'Cormack

I cannot find any reliable source stating his existence or notability. He isn't listed on sports-reference.com[44], which has essentially all of the Olympic competitors in history. Neither did a Google search reveal any sources. This leads me to believe the article is probably a hoax. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I doubt that it's a hoax, but it should be deleted unless references can be given, and quick. Deb (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't this been deleted or relisted yet?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 16 and it looks like this AFD was not listed on the page. —Snigbrook 15:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably a hoax. The only source I can find is http://allafrica.com/stories/200805060821.html but it still looks like a hoax to me; the two links to the article are Boxing at the 1984 Summer Olympics and Sierra Leone at the 1984 Summer Olympics, which appear to have been vandalised as they contradict information on http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1984/1984v2.pdf which has the Olympic results. It also seems to contradict the Mauro Galvano article and the reference used in it. —Snigbrook 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IP addresses that edited the article, or added links in other articles:
- These IPs are all in Alameda and Santa Clara counties, in California. —Snigbrook 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, speedy if possible. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if not a hoax, there is nothing here that establishes notability. Looie496 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Competing at the Olympics actually does constitute notability. The problem with this article is that no sources back up the claim.--TM 23:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable hoax, article cannot be verified.Esasus (talk) 23:44, 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 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Cooke (abductee)[edit]

James Cooke had an abduction experience, set up a UFO church in Runcorn for ten years, and then vanished. That is all that any sources seem to have about him (the local paper being the source that seems to have the most information -- a single paragraph). I'm pretty sure this is a WP:ONEEVENT-type case. As such, I submit he is not notable per our WP:BIO guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a general article on the topic of UFO abduction. Not enough material here for its own article as nom says. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Could be merged into Abduction claimants, but I don't think there is anything worth merging into that article. -Atmoz (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. His claim to have been abducted to the planet Zomdic by a UFO also fails verifiability. Not enopugh reliable sourcing to justify merger to another article about abduction claimants. Perhaps there are reliable sources on Zomdic which might someday allow a good article to be recreated. Edison (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ If being the Uk's first case of alien abduction isn't notability, then what will it take? The guy has already been abducted once, and now he seems to have vanished, the least we can do is bear witness to his legacy. Oh, and there are strong indications of substantial coverage in reliable sources, so it's a keep on that basis too. Because the abduction took place in 1957, we need those archives. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial. There is no need to keep this article to bear witness to his legacy. Where are these strong indications of substantial coverage in reliable sources? Better still, where is the actual coverage in reliable sources? Claiming you've been abducted by aliens does not make you notable, even if you're the first to do so. -Atmoz (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the article that's already there: He set up the "Church of Aquarius in the town. It became so popular that a second "church" was opened. Here, James "channeled" information from the elders of Zomdic. The church ran for 10 years before James disappeared from public view in 1969." Is someone going to claim there isn't substantial coverage for this guy, the alleged abduction, the ten years of his church? I think not. Updating my vote to ~~STRONG keep~~. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the substantial coverage? There is one mention of him in a non-notable newspaper—the Warrington Guardian. Asserting that there is substantial coverage in reliable third party sources does not make it so. Please provide the evidence if you have any. -Atmoz (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately newspaper and magazine coverage from the 60s is hard to come by. But if we contact the library there, I'm sure they can help us. In the meantime let's keep this article so the information isn't lost due to technological bias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to contact the local library and begin providing the plethora of sources you seem certain exist, please be our guest. However, the onus is on you, not me, to prove that the sources actually exist. If you find you don't have the time to do it today but later find yourself in Runcorn library surrounded by a crush of sources about this guy, by all means ask an administrator to undelete so you can get access to this piece-of-you-know-what article. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, I can't find anything about this subject. Is it perhaps a hoax? Has a mass mind wiping and archive deleting taken place? We may never know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source with any reliability for this story is a piece in a local paper, the Warrington Guardian; we used to have an article on that paper but it has itself been speedily deleted as not sufficiently notable. I don't think that passes WP:RS: it's not multiple sources, and the source we have isn't reliable enough. (I know the same information can be found on some UFO-believer web sites, but pardon me if I don't find that convincing either.) And even if there were better sources, I think that this fails WP:BIO1E unless the supposed church he founded can also be shown to be notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on at least one point. Whether a source is reliable or whether it is notable are two entirely different things. The paper can have a perfectly acceptable editorial fact checking guideline and still not be notable because no information can be found about the paper itself. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one reference is an article that leads with "Do you have any UFO stories to add? If so, why not email us". We do not have to join in. --Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No matter how you feel about alien abduction claims, UFO believer sites are perfectly acceptable to verify the claimed "first UK abductee claim" since they're the most likely group to keep such records. Contrary to what someone else said, being the first of what has become a wide phenomenon is in my view inherently notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. See WP:RS, particularly the two sections on self-published sources and on extremist and fringe sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No reliable sources have been cited to verify that he actually was the first to be "abducted" as opposed to claiming or imagining he was abducted by a UFO. I might claim or imagine that I found a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. That doesn't make it so, and it wouldn't make me or my claim encyclopedic, unless it received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I added a couple more refereces. Please note that sometimes he's refered to as "James Cook:, which could be affecting searches. Artw (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miirrha Alhambra[edit]

Non-notable pianist. Could find no source establishing notability. A google search (either by his real name or stage name) only returns Wikipedia mirrors or memorial sites. Damiens.rf 15:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 19:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New York Times citations are given for the article from 1928-1932. The article could be expanded with material not available online from France, Germany, South America and Mexico. I don't know the contributor who started the stub, but it needs to be expanded. Doc ♬ talk 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Time citations are just trivial mentions about her playing somewhere. Her work wasn't notable enough to be discussed. --Damiens.rf 15:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references mentioned in the article are not available online, so it's not surprising the nom can't find them. Find A Grave is a site dedicated to graves of what are usually considered famous people. While it is not reliable in itself since it relies on user contributions, it clearly shows information for an article is available for those who look close enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you asking us to keep this biography based on what her relatives wrote about her on Find a Grave? --Damiens.rf 15:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above...I've seen enough there now to warrant inclusion..but it can use some more help..Modernist (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate on "per above"? I could find no convincing argument for keeping above. --Damiens.rf 15:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - see above - New York Times citations are given for the article from 1928-1932. I don't accept your opinion: The New York Time citations are just trivial mentions. Modernist (talk) 16:39, 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 00:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Griffin (politician)[edit]

Delete non notable local politician Mayalld (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are countless lists of local politicians throughout Wikipedia with full articles of each member, why shouldn't Scottish councillors be added? Big Jim 15:04, 23 January 2009

Comment that is just a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and WP:POLITICIAN is explicit that merely being elected to a local council doesn't make somebody notable Mayalld (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but the other stuff does exist, so the standard you refer to is not being uniformly met. For example, why are many of the members of Chicago City Council deserving of entry whilst members of North Lanarkshire Council are not? Big Jim 15:11, 23 January 2009

Comment - That would fall under criteria 2 "received significant press coverage", which this guy doesn't seem to have. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in many of their articles. Perhaps we shoudld delete 30 odd of them (seriously). MikeHobday (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also covered by WP:OUTCOMES, which notes that AFD precedent has tended to favour articles about councillors of major metropolitan cities (which is not to say that even those are inherently entitled to articles, but it does show where the notability line tends to be drawn in borderline cases — and since somebody might try the "but this is near Glasgow!" argument, I should clarify that the precedent means the city council itself, not the county councils of the city's suburbs.) Ultimately, though, any local politician can have an article if said article meets WP:N and WP:RS — but there's no particularly strong evidence being shown here that this particular fellow meets that threshhold. So delete if somebody doesn't start adding real sources instead of snarking on policy. Bearcat (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability asserted and nothing on him that seems to meet WP:POLITICIAN. A google search shows up just one news story in a local newspaper related to routine council work which definitely doesn't qualify. Valenciano (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grandmartin11 and Valenciano. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 21:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local councillors are not notable in themselves, and no other claim to notability is presented. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 22:40, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Seamstress (A Tale of Two Cities)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The character does hold some importance to the character development of Sydney Carton, but her impact in the story, and in culture, is limited to that importance. Perhaps more importantly, this article has very limited sourcing and contains virtually no examination of the character's import, just a plot summary (with some extra unsourced specualtion tossed in). Powers ^T 14:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with A Tale of Two Cities. Not appropriate for AfD.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is it not appropriate? The article you suggest already has sufficient plot summary, and this is an exceedingly unlikely search term for a redirect. Powers ^T 18:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that if something can be merged with another article, it isn't necessary to invoke the rather elaborate AfD process. I feel this could be merged with another article. As for the redirect... well: [45] --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary to merge for all that GFDL hassle. Just delete it. Eusebeus (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. In addition to an earlier discussion having already closed as keep. This is a character from one of the great works of literature who has also been adaptated in cinema as well. While the article as nominated may not reflect its notability due to the lack of sources, here is an instance where considerably scholarly/academic study has in fact been used on this character. Google Books gets over a hundred hits, and looking through the results, she is indeed discussed out of universe and at length in these sources as well. The article has importance to literary scholars, students in high school or college reading this book, as well as to film scholars and students studying adaptations of Dickens' work in cinema. Surely, someone is able to use those books results to develop this article. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep? Which of the speedy keep criteria applies? Powers ^T 03:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Previous discussion closed as keep and due to clear existence of out of universe analysis in reliable secondary sources as well as relevance to students and scholars of literature and cinema. A clear case of improveable content with real world significance. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The speedy keep criteria are here. I don't see any that apply. Powers ^T 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am arguing to speedy keep due to the encylopedic notability of characters from this particular work and not because of that link. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you misunderstand the meaning of "speedy keep", then. Powers ^T 21:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it is just that there are other instances in which speedy keep applies than the examples listed there. Once, as in this case, multiple scholarly sources have been presented, the discussion should be withdrawn, because the character meets our notability guideline. I do not believe you nominated in bad faith, but the article is clearly improveable as it has already seen improvement and I only scratched the surface of the sources available for this character who is from one of the most notable novels of all time (one that students read in high school and college literature courses and thus one in which people read about and discuss this character in academic settings), as well as in multiple stage and screen adaptations of that novel. I think you can make a case for merging the referenced material into the main article, or into a list of characters article, or using this article as the basis of an article on the seamstress as a character type due to the examples mentioned below that discuss this type of character in various works by Dickens and other Victorian authors, but there is no compelling reason to delete per Wikipedia:PRESERVE#Preserve_information as it is not original research, not duplicative, not redundant, not irrelevant, not patent nonsense, not a copywright violation, not inaccurate, and not an unsourced claim about a living person. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The character is relevant to two other characters and at the very least it could be turned into a stub containing the film and broadway information. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK#Derivative articles. This decidedly minor character has not been shown to have received substantial treatment in reliable secondary sources, despite the citations added by A Nobody—some of which I suspect are to works he hasn't bothered to actually read. In the Oxford Reader's Companion to Dickens she doesn't even rate a mention in the five-and-a-half-page article (including plot summary) on A Tale of Two Cities, nor does she in the plot summary in our own article on the novel; she therefore certainly doesn't rate a stand-alone article. Deor (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which is factually accurate. For one, she is mentioned in our main article on the novel. Also, if you read the sources you will see that she gets substantial out of universe coverage in numerous reliable secondary sources and that she appears not just in one of the most notable novels of all time but also in stage adaptations of the novel. In addition to the substantial treatment in reliable secondary sources, the information is also worth keeping per Wikipedia:PRESERVE#Preserve_information as it is not original research, not duplicative, not redundant, not irrelevant, not patent nonsense, not a copywright violation, not inaccurate, and not an unsourced claim about a living person. In any event, I did a search on JSTOR, and such results as "Creating a Symbol: The Seamstress in Victorian Literature" by Lynn M. Alexander in Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 29-38 come up. There is as such no legitimate or honest reason for deletion at this time, because being the subject of scholarly studies meets WP:FICT. Another result using an academic search engine is Lynn M. Alexander, "Following the Thread: Dickens and the Seamstress," Victorian Newsletter 80 (Fall 1991): 1-7. Thus, the character type of the seamstress is the focus of multiple scholarly studies and as such we can unequivocally use such sources to develop an article on Dicken's use of the seamstress or even to build on article on the character type in Victorian literature in general. And these are just a couple of examples. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate sourcing for independent notability, and all the rest of the objections are therefore irrelevant. It's not very frequent that this is the case with an unnamed character, but this is one of the exceptions.
Keep. Notable minor character of a literary work that has been dissected and reproduced across multiple languages and media. Plenty of sourcing exists so the rest remains regular editing which is not an AfD issue. -- Banjeboi 09:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rather than merge, expand it here and have a "see main article". Also, this article is somewhate notable in that it helps us understand the movie better.Smallman12q (talk) 23:45, 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. Tone 14:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and Oranges (game)[edit]

Contested prod. Game without an assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for no proof of notability. Wikipedia is not the Toys 'R Us catalog. Mandsford (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mandsford. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability offered. JuJube (talk) 23:54, 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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los (band)[edit]

Recreated speedy, A7. There are two references now but I am uncertain if they suffice. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 13:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three references, but two of them are reviews of the songs and are not primarily about the band. Only one source is actually about the band, which isn't sufficient under WP:MUSIC. Powers ^T 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently seeking the publication dates of a number of offline references. Can deletion not be postponed for now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevagrantsfragrance (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further references have been found relating to the band's members and single releases. Thevagrantsfragrance 13:40, 25 January 2009 (GMT)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Fails the general notability guideline by not being covered in multiple reliable sources. Also no evidence to show meets any of the criteria at WP:BAND. --JD554 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: change to keep because of new reference, now meets multiple reliable sources criteria. --JD554 (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are now multiple reliable sources, so it satisfies notability requirements.Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definately sufficient coverage to justify an article. As well as there now being multiple referenced sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.219.161 (talk) 20:09, 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 Withdrawn. For now. Web reviews of this software do exist. The article will be tagged accordingly. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hackvertor[edit]

Contested prod. The article initially stated that it had been created to make up for a lack of documentation on Hackvertor, a statement that has been removed along with the prod notice. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasoning but c'mon I thought the idea of wikipedia was to collaborate on topics. Hackvertor contains documentation but it is a open source project I can't dedicate huge chunks of time, I was hoping to get Hackvertor users to help me improve the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackvertor (talk • contribs) 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Wikipedia requires that all of its contents be verifiable, and that it be about notable subjects, you should wait for the lacking documentation to exist elsewhere before starting a Wikipedia article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hackvertor is notable within the security community, it doesn't make the news because I don't have a marketing budget as it is open source. That last sentence made no sense I'm confused. comment added by Hackvertor (talk • contribs)

Notable means it makes the news without you shelling out even a penny for marketing. Notable means it is talked about without you commissioning it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article provide interesting and relevant information on this freeware : its origin, its purpose, how it can be used. Granted there is a lot to do on the styling, but it still provides informations which I think has its place on Wikipedia, maybe you could consider removing this Afd and instead use a styling notice. Also note that even if not very well known, this freeware has had its reviews on the web ([46]) which make it notable to more than the author himself. Olivier Jaquemet (talk) 13:39, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life. support. music.[edit]

Delete non notable film Mayalld (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an award at a film festival coupled with exposure on PBS's independent film showcase is just enough for me. Powers ^T 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with LtPowers that this is notable enough for inclusion. the wub "?!" 18:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Keep! The current article is much improved from when it was first nominated. After having given the article a complete facelift and sourcing, I may report with confidence that it has recieved multiple awards internationally, is still on the festival circuit, and is getting substantial coverage in reliable sources. Its a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mr. Schmidt, thank you very much for your excellent revision/expansion on the Life. Support. Music. ("LSM") article. I humbly submit that LSM, which will be seen by millions of people this year on television, and which was shown at many major festivals in multiple countries, is worthy of inclusion. Many similarly-situated films (extensive festival run plus POV broadcast) are safely included in Wikipedia. LSM features exclusive interviews with several noteworthy Wikipedia subjects, including Norah Jones and Marshall Crenshaw. Additionally, the noteworthiness of the film's creator, Eric Daniel Metzgar, is currently soaring with the release of his latest film, "Reporter," which stars famed journalist Nicholas Kristof, features a notorious African warlord (Laurent Nkunda), was produced by Ben Affleck, and is right now in competition at the Sundance Film Festival. LSM is an important piece of Metzgar’s body of work. Please do not delete this noteworthy film! Gassho 02:56, 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 Transwiki. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms incorporating Hungarian[edit]

A substantial list, possibly even a useful list, but neither the substantial nature nor the useful nature are reasons to keep it despite the evident hard work put in by the originator. But it is, to me an indiscriminate collection of information, and as such has no place here. It matters not at all whether each term is notable, verifiable or referenced. The list itself is indiscriminate. This is not a "list vs category" thing. I have the same argument against any similar category. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. An interesting list, but unencyclopedic. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dropping all the stuff with "Hungarian" in its name together in one list is a text book example of indiscriminate. Not useful either because we have search engines for that. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. I agree with Rhinoracer that this is neither encyclopedic nor useful as metadata. Powers ^T 14:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Almost all of these loosely related subjects should appear under the definition of the word "Hungarian". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no transwiki. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia's trashcan. If anyone needs a list of all Wikipedia articles containing the word "Hungarian", it's here. —An gr 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as appropriate to List of Hungary-related topics, not a category of list I like but one which seems to be accepted by consensus. A list of topics around the same subject may be acceptable but a list of terms which include the same word is - in my opinion - a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization, Wikipedia is not a directory. Guest9999 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to List of Hungary-related topics seems reasonable. For those suggesting a transwiki to wiktionary -- does that project want these sort of lists? Unless such lists are appropriate on Wiktionary, I don't think suggesting to transwiki is helpful. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as list with arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory, and anyone wanting to search for a specific term in the title can do so. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as list with coincidence of name; any items that are refered to by the one word "Hungarian" should be listed at Hungarian, a disambiguation page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These terms should not be part of the Hungary disambiguation, as they do NOT disambiguate the term Hungarian as it would be used or wikilink'd on WP pages, so those links were excised from the disambig page for that reason. So the list has not been built specifically built for a purpose, more as people had been contributing them to the disambig page over time. Then rather than be trashed (and to lessen the chance of them being added again) they were place as a set index, from the disambig page. So to the page itself, I mind not either way whether it stays or goes, just not back on the disambig page. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:08, 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 to maintain history per GFDL after merge to The Mission discography. (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mission Singles[edit]

Obsolete as a separate article. I've moved all information to The Mission discography, per common practice with musicians. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Proper credit needs to be given to the people who originally added the material to this article to follow the GFDL. (If it was taken from the main article instead, it is still a useful redirect) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point I didn't think about. Can I just insert the redirect or do I have to wait until this discussion is officially over? Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw your nomination (which should be quicker) or we can wait for the discussion to finish in five days. --JD554 (talk) 14:53, 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 merge to BBcode. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UBB-code[edit]

Seems specific to specific bulletin board software without indicating so. No relationship with BBCode, which is obviously sortof the same, but more relevant — Zanaq (?) 10:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if expanded and sourced...I've used this code on a lot of fora. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really sure it is not BB-code, which uses largely the same codes, and is being used much more? — Zanaq (?) 13:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a manual or guidebook. Powers ^T 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not entirely sure if this is even an independent pseudo-markup language or just BBcode with a couple custom tags, as PHPBB allows forum admins to add their own custom tags, and I've seen the music and video tags on various PHPBB-powered. forums. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and redirect to BBcode -- This is a subset, superset, or variation of regular BBcode, and does not need its own article. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 21:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to BBcode, which this is a minor although somewhat common variant of. JulesH (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bandy World Championship 2007 squad lists[edit]

Delete as indiscriminate information Mayalld (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I fail to see what's indiscriminate about this. We have lots of lists of players on national sports squads, and this one has well defined inclusion criteria. Powers ^T 14:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bandy is substantially less notable than football, rugby, etc. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly, but that has nothing to do with how discriminating the list is. Powers ^T 18:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 4, and 10. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research and unverifiable? How so? Powers ^T 18:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Stifle says, no-one cares about Bandy, whatever it is, except maybe in some random Baltic countries which don't count. Therefore it is non-notable. There are also no inline citations so it is unverifiable and original research. Benefix (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me it's no less notable than a list of football players - American or the real thing. Bandy being non-notable for the countries it's played in? Shame on you. This is the English Language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. To us in the UK and Europe, American football is non-notable. No-one much plays it seriously outside the USA, do they? Same with basketball. Geographic locations are not a measure of notability. But shock! horror! There's a squad in there from a non-notable Baltic state called the United States... Peridon (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Peridon has never bandied, and was dropped (to his great pleasure) from several school sports.[reply]

Here's a link to one team that a player came from for that non-notable squad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Blades Peridon (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bandy is a well-supported sport in the Nordic countries and Russia. On a global scale it's not as notable as association football, but comes reasonably close to American football or rugby. As Peridon says this is not an encyclopedia about only the anglosphere. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. The subject isn't notable for an article. The championship itself deserves mention, but this... the grouping of groupings of people isn't notable in itself. Themfromspace (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the information indiscriminate? Powers ^T 13:19, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bandy World Championship 2009 squad lists[edit]

Delete as indiscriminate information Mayalld (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I fail to see what's indiscriminate about this. We have lots of lists of players on national sports squads, and this one has well defined inclusion criteria. Powers ^T 14:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 4, and 10. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research and unverifiable? How so? Powers ^T 18:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All players are confirmed to play in the World Chpionchips. A lot of these players are professional athletes, well known to Swedes, Finns an Russian a like. Durator (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Stifle says, no-one cares about Bandy, whatever it is, except maybe in some random Baltic countries which don't count. Therefore it is non-notable. There are also no inline citations so it is unverifiable and original research. Benefix (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me it's no less notable than a list of football players - American or the real thing. Bandy being non-notable for the countries it's played in? Shame on you. This is the English Language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. To us in the UK and Europe, American football is non-notable. No-one much plays it seriously outside the USA, do they? Same with basketball. Geographic locations are not a measure of notability. But shock! horror! There's a squad in there from a non-notable Baltic state called the United States... Peridon (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Peridon has never bandied, and was dropped (to his great pleasure) from several school sports.[reply]

Here's a link to one team that a player came from for that non-notable squad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Blades Peridon (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't all these lists be taken together to save time? If 2009 is kept and 2007 is deleted, we might look a bit silly as well. Peridon (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bandy is a well-supported sport in the Nordic countries and Russia. On a global scale it's not as notable as association football, but comes reasonably close to American football or rugby. As Peridon says this is not an encyclopedia about only the anglosphere. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlocks daughter[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT - wikipedia is not the place to post your unpublished novel. Mayalld (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nonsense. I'm tagging as such, but if it survives, delete per nom. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:38, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. faithless (^speak) 09:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie colins[edit]

Delete as WP:MADEUP unable to verify the claims made in this article Mayalld (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G7). Bencherlite ^Talk 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dagor Dagorath (band)[edit]

Non notable death metal band. They aren't signed, they have not toured, and they don't have any prominent band members. Fails WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC; not signed, haven't released an album. Utterly non-notable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band. It's out of WP:MUSIC rules etc. LexArt (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I'm the writer), re-thought about it. Psychomelodic (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well you can request it to be deleted yourself with ((db-author)) in the future. FireCrystal (talk) 19:04, 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 delete. Tone 14:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rodriguez[edit]

Unreferenced bio. Little found else where. triwbe (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually I propose a redirect to Jonathan Rodriguez (basketball). --triwbe (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can be found in no reliable sources. Pyrrhus16 11:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person who is president of a non-notable company with a non-notable product. The only evidence I can find that this person exists is his spamming of web forums. -Atmoz (talk) 17:44, 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 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Christian Schools[edit]

Possible spam for non-notable schools. Aurush kazemini^talk 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article about San Antonio Christian High School [47] would likely meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability, and what little information is in this particular page can be mentioned there. If the author wishes undertake that project, I'll support it. Mandsford (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Nonnotable school. Ikip (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been media coverage on the schools: [48]. The article needs to be expanded. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contrary to the statement by the nominator, I see nothing spammy about this page. As highlighted by Pastor Theo, there are plenty of sources available through a Google search which collectively meet WP:ORG. I would also add that pages on groups of schools, like school districts, have utility as useful repositories of information on schools that, individually, may be nn. The alternative is the helpful suggestion by Mandsford to which I have no objection. TerriersFan (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure) Little Mountain 5 17:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tay al-Ard[edit]

This subject of this article is not noteworthy. I question (as have others) even the existence of the feature in question: I call bullshit on this article, and let me tell you, I have seen some questionable and esoteric things in my time... But Teleportation in Islam seriously takes the cake. Ogress _smash! 08:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Ogress _smash! 08:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weird though it is, it is found referred to in books: [49] [50] and a few esoteric websites. Possibly should be a sub-article in an Islam article, but not bs. Collect (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like in the first AfD, the concept is the subject of secondary sources in addition to the ones found by Collect. --Oakshade (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources found by Collect, more sources are available by doing a simple Google Search. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Articles are not deleted because a user "calls bullshit" on it, if verifiable sources mention it. Nobody's saying the phenomenon exists, any more than an article on any other item of faith is advocating its existence.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - for all the reasons outlined above. Tris2000 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo (file format)[edit]

Delete. This is just an obscure compression format which has never received non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties and probably never will. 'Til then... JBsupreme (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks notability. Pyrrhus16 11:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- In the late 1980's / early 1990's, after the foofaraw surrounding the announcement that the ARC file format was retroactively declared to be closed and proprietary, and before ZIP managed to gain commanding market share with the "Deflate" algorithm, there was a plethora of competing compression archive file formats and programs, including LHA, ARJ, PAK, among others -- and ZOO was right in there with all the rest (and was available for Unix and VAX-VMS as well as MS-DOS). ZOO in fact received a fair amount of coverage in the trade press or computer magazines of the day, in various articles or reviews comparing and contrasting the different archivers, though it has certainly fallen by the wayside in the last 15 years... AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that could be improved about the article, is that the only date mentioned is "mid-1980s", while the program's maximum popularity was probably ca. 1990. AnonMoos (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Nominator: "has never received non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties" - a Google query for zoo compression format delivers 24k+ results. They can't be all trivial or from unreliable third parties.Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they can. Google search does not equate to notability in the encyclopedic sense. Don't aimlessly point at "24k+ results", show two or three examples of reliable coverage as required. JBsupreme (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course they can; but the point is that it's extremely unlikely that they do. Considering the sheer number of mentions all over the internet, the testimonies of others, and last but not least my own personal judgement, I'd consider sifting through these a waste of time. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per [51], [52], and a bunch more. Sufficiently notable IMHO. Collect (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These are both highly trivial mentions, nothing actually documenting the format at all. JBsupreme (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems your definition of "highly trivial" differs from everyone else's. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This format was heavily involved in the compression format competition of the mid 80's - early 90's. The article needs to be sourced better, not deleted. Google searches mentioned above show that there are reliable sources to be found. Amazinglarry (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a major format. Personal experience with this format during the early 1990s showed that it was used on most software distribution BBS systems and was as common as PKware, though not as common as ARJ. It had corporate backing, was heavily used on VAX/OpenVMS and is still available as a package in most Linux distributions! RedHat, Debian and Gentoo all still offer zoo compressor/uncompressors in their package trees. It is a historic format and a record of it should be kept. 11:34, 23 January 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumdog (talk • contribs)

Keep - aside from personally encountering it, there are references to it in this guide to shareware, identified as a popular archive format in this book, identified as common on Amiga systems in this book, listed as a common file type in this book, and also listed in this book. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Element Skateboards[edit]

clearly an ad, runs afoul of at the very least WP:ADVERT and WP:N Aurush kazemini^talk 06:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spamvertising. JBsupreme (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after cleanup. Doesn't fall foul of WP:N because it's been described as "the world's leading skateboard company" by a leading daily newspaper, as clearly cited and linked in the article. Some phrases do fall foul of WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT as it stands, but I think that could be solved by a little editing. I'll start that now.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant enough company with sufficient coverage.--Michig (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is far from spam. It is referenced by a number of reliable sources, which I added earlier this month, that shows it notability. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 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 speedy delete. Blatant advertising. Tone 15:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Research[edit]

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tagged it for SD. It seems every time I do new page patrol I find a page created under the same circumstances: Page is for a largely unknown company, the account used was created only for that purpose and it uses a sandbox subpage in the user page to draft the contents of the article. I think I've run into 5-6 of these in the past month. I assume it's the work of a PR entity of some sort, maybe. §FreeRangeFrog 06:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See [53] for an example, if you can access its history and the account that was used to create it. §FreeRangeFrog 06:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Although this business describes itself as a provides performance monitoring and diagnostics software solutions for business-critical computing environments, without a showing of minimal importance it probably isn't worth taking to pages needing translation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Stryver[edit]

non-notable fictional character in a book. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 06:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Tale of Two Cities. This article is nothing but a regurgitation of the story of the book which the main article, WikiSource and Project Gutenberg cover adequately. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think this should be deleted, as mr. stryver plays a fairly important role in the novel. the seamstress, who is mentions for the first time in very last chapter, is nameless, and has a much less significant role has her own page. how can deleting a page of a character with much greater importance than that be justified? --Itsina (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article should be deleted as well, but until it is, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Powers ^T 14:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as MGM correctly suggests.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above. Eusebeus (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator neglected to mention which book, and which author. All named characters in Dickens and similarly world-famous authors of that rank are notable. Myself, I think such notability is intrinsic, but it is also the case that the critical literature on authors of that rank is so extremely great, that there is certain to be extensive critical references available, which will make it possible to discuss with good sources both his role in the novel, and the RW relationships. Tale of two cities is a political novel with a purpose, even more than the rest of Dickens, and he did not insert characters at random just for background. I assume the usual diligent people on this topic will put in the references and the academic discussion very soon, as well as relted information on the role in the various derivative works. DGG (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements since nomination and per WP:JNN. Stryver may not be the main character of the novel, but he is a character who has appeared in a dozen film, television, and stage adaptations of it. if you check what I have been doing to the article thus far, please note in particular that external link, I believe I can compliment the section on "Depiction in the novel" with one on "Depiction in film, television, and broadway" as the character has been portrayed at least ten times in those various mediums (IMDB doesn't list the broadway productions) and I am fairly confident that a scholarly reception section can be added. Hey, as frustrated as I may be seeing these Baum characters nominated for deletion, I actually see characters from a Charles Dickens book that have appeared in at least TEN (10!!) TV and cinematic adaptations and for which I am able to find not just reviews, but full length scholarly articles focused specifically and entirely on these particular characters, not to mention clear evidence of school assignments concerning these characters. When we start trying to delete articles concerning characters people actually study in school and for which they are the subject of journal articles, we are losing sight of what an encyclopedia/reference guide is. Almost as disconcerting as when I saw someone redirect rather than improve the article on the main character in War and Peace for whom full length dissertations have been devoted, scholars have called the "greatest literary figure of all time", etc. I have way too many articles to rescue at once!! :0 (not sure how to make an exhuasted face...) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and sources added. Non-primary characters are not always notable but when reproduced by multiple producers, actors and productions they develop a history beyond the initial writings. -- Banjeboi 09:49, 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 - Withdrawn by nominator- Peripitus (Talk) 12:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenbrook Lagoon[edit]

This appears to be a hoax. The Blue Mountains (Australia) and Glenbrook, New South Wales (where the explorers passed through) are in Australia, not New Zealand. Grahame (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - the NZ reference was a bit of mis-wikifying see here. The original reads as made up - Peripitus (Talk) 06:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)~~Keep - Bloody good work Dramatic - Peripitus (Talk) 09:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - apart from the link to the wrong Glenbrook, which is easily fixed, the lagoon exists and there are good sources for everything in the article: [54], [55], [56], [57]. dramatic (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is still some question whether the lagoon is notable in its own right or whether this couldn't be included in the Glenbrook, New South Wales article.--Grahame (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes Wikipedia:Notability (geography), which isn't official policy but states that named geographic features (eg lakes) are usually notable. Certainly do not delete, at most a redirect to Glenbrook, New South Wales, but the information in the sources already provided gives plenty of scope for expansion into a good stub or even full article.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a named geographic feature. Furthermore, there are sources. As the editor who wikified the article, I should have been a little more vigilant as the original author is a vandal who is now blocked. -- Whpq (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn in view of the effort to convert the original silly and unsourced article into a real article.--Grahame (talk) 11:57, 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, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aloysius (Waugh)[edit]

A teddy bear mentioned relatively briefly in a novel does not seem to meet WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djlayton4 (talk • contribs)

Keep. A teddy bear considered important by the Stratford-upon-Avon Teddy Bear Museum seems to be notable to me. While I haven't read the novel, I'm under the impression that the teddy bear receives more than a brief mention. According to this article "purists" consider the bear an important part of the novel. See also additional reliable sources to the one in the article: [58][59][60][61]. JulesH (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept, it should be renamed Aloysius (teddy bear) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable fictional stuffed bear. Clearly influential on the cultural depiction of teddy bears in late 20th century Britain. Additionally, Aloysius has a brief speaking role in Jasper Fforde's novel The Well of Lost Plots. I think (though I may be wrong) that the bear's full name is Aloysius Flyte, which is preferably to the present title, although Aloysius (teddy bear) would be just fine too. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aloyisius is key to Sebastian Flyte's character and description. The teddy bear figures prominently in the novel; in fact, the first time the narrator, Charles Ryder, sees Sebastian he is holding Aloysius and buying a comb with which to threaten him if he behaves badly. The references to the bear continue throughout the novel and should not be discounted. --Bennett0509 (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bridehead Revisited is one of the great novels of the last century, and has led to a celebrated TV adaption and to a less celebrated, but more recent, film. The characters in the book are all, I should say, notable. The fact that this particular character is a teddy bear does not diminish his importance as a character. He is, in fact, one of the characters most people remember most vividly. He appears on the cover of the box set of videos of the TV adaptation. The teddy bear is a very important figure in western culture, and especially in British culture, where the teddy bear seems to hold a very special place in the national consciousness. For historians of the teddy bear, Aloysius must rank as one of the great literary representations of the bear, second only to Winnie the Pooh. The character of Sebastian is very hard to understand without his bear. The incident with the hairbrush with which the bear is to be punished is clearly an important comment on the affinity that the English upper class has always had with corporal punishment. Teddy bears and spanking are two defining characteristics of English upper-class mores, and they are united in the character of Aloysius. I was unaware of the intertextual treatment of Aloysius, but this certainly needs to be added to the article. I'm sorry if this is the most elegantly written comment, but I am in a hurry.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:31, 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 redirect to Michelle McManus. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle McManus discography[edit]

Contested PROD. Prod concern: This article is unreferenced, the numbers are suspect, the original version contained information about a seeminly-non-existant album, and most importantly, there is no reason any content that can be referenced can't be added to Michelle McManus. This is an unnecessary split-off that appears to be just for the purpose of spreading content over additional aritcles. Prod2 text: In addition to the above, it is highly likely that this article was created by a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked editor, User:Nimbley6. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators recommendation: Redirect with or without edit history to Michelle McManus and lock or delete and salt, and lock to prevent re-creation by disruptive editor. Salt or lock should be for at least 30 days but not more than a year. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators observation 2 1/2 days in: Consensus seems to be to redirect and protect, which implies keeping the edit history. No objections here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The creator of this article is blocked until 22:02 26 January 2009. This AFD should not be speedy-closed until a day after this editor's block expires to give him a chance to respond. However, should the allegations of sockpuppetry of a banned editor prove true, the article may qualify for speedy deletion. davidwr/([[User_talk:davidwr|talk (contribs)/(e-mail) 05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC) indefinitely blocked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article that this content belongs in is semi-protected. The creation of this article was the editor's second edit. This suggests that had the editor been able to edit Michelle McManus, he might have done so rather than create a new article. Perhaps when the editor's block expires he can elaborate on this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. This information was already in the article for the singer prior to its creation. Non-neccesary duplication. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect - if McManus warrents a seperate discography page it can be requested and made. This sockpuppeteer is relentless and refuses to engage with the community (I've tried). A redirect will stop this being remade. --Jza84 | Talk 12:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect - per Jza84. Several editors have attempted to reason with this editor to no avail. I suspect part of the problem is that the editor simply doesn't understand why what they're doing is wrong: see, for example, this attempt to get another editor (who hasn't edited since January 1st) to upload images (this followed the sockpuppeteer's uploaded images being repeatedly deleted on commons). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the benefit of others, it should also be said that this puppetmaster is a child. --Jza84 | Talk 15:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, claims to be a child - its been caught out fibbing once or twice now. That said, age is the only polite explanation I can think of - subject to the caveat that my 10 year-old niece is a far better speller, and has far more "clue". Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. It's not like Michelle McManus is overly long. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect the page. JBsupreme (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's additional comment This article was created by Flyingmonkeyswithparis (talk · contribs), who was later confirmed to be a sockpuppet of the banned user nimbly6. This means this article is eligible for speedy-deletion under criteria WP:G5. However, doing so would leave the article open for re-creation by another editor, probably the next nimbly6 sockpuppet. Resolution through AFD is preferred because the results are binding on any editor, including undiscovered future nimbly6 socks. If the article is redirected and locked, the talk page will still be open for ((editprotected)) requests. A discussion to restart the article can happen Talk:Michelle McManus as well, should it become necessary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:35, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sobrietol[edit]

Disguised advertising for nonnotable "health supplement". NawlinWiki (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite per WP:NPOV, [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] indicate notability per WP:GNG. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The three citations purporting to be for "peer-reviewed science" are either broken or irrelevant; a random sampling of the other citations indicates original research and shows all the signs of junk science. WP:FRINGE seems to apply here. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still Delete. I was asked to re-examine this article after its rewriting, and I believe that the guidelines of WP:FRINGE are the most appropriate ones to apply. I quote: "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.[1] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence,[2] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it.". I looked at all the sources so thoughtfully and thoroughly provided -- I can't quarrel with the amount of work that's gone into this, which is impressive, I merely disagree with the conclusion. I don't see "other well-known, reliable (emphasis mine) and verifiable sources", I definitely don't see any peer-reviewed science, and I don't wish "Wikipedia to become the primary source for fringe theories". I cheerfully admit that I have a bias against furthering the commercial applications of what I see as junk science, and I feel there is the strong possibility that Wikipedia is being used here to promote a commmercial product that is possibly not only useless but actually dangerous. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If one were to propose a novel theory of physics, an appropriate forum would be an article in a respected peer-reviewed journal, not the evening news. But despite the fact that the manufacturers of Sobrietol have made dubious health claims for their product, it still is a consumer product, not a new scientific theory. Therefore, its notability should be evaluated under the standards applied to other consumer products, for which coverage in the mainstream media is sufficient to show notability per WP:GNG. An NPOV article does not "promote a commmercial product" unless we believe that "any publicity is good publicity", since the current version adequately conveys the likely inefficacy, side effects, and potential dangers of the product reported by the news programs that evaluated it. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 23:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ~~current~~original article iswas indeed abysmal, full of unreliable sources, misuse of sources, original research, etc. But the question that AFD normally resolves is whether an article's subject is acceptable, normally whether it meets WP:N, and in any case whether an article consistent with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR could be written on it. The coverage of Sobrietol specifically in third-party WP:RS noted in my comment above would suggest that this article's subject is acceptable for inclusion. The article itself requires some radical editing, which I will attempt soon. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 05:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to rewrite the article, which has necessarily involved a drastic removal of inappropriate content, under the theory that it's better to temporarily have a short, NPOV stub than an OR puff piece. The extent of coverage of Sobrietol in third-party WP:RS leaves significant room for appropriate expansion. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 05:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. Previous version was abysmal, Kristen's is much better.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Since when have "experiments" conducted by television newsrooms been reliable, verifiable sources of the efficacy and safety of drugs? This is junk science at its worst. —G716 <^T·_C> 12:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- we aren't considering the efficacy and safety of drugs. Wikipedia can't realistically do that and doesn't try. We're considering the drug in terms of Wikipedia policy only... so the only purpose a mention in a TV newsroom serves is notability.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: regardless of the merits of the TV newsrooms' experimental methodology, their reporting is at least reliable for the purpose of showing that they conducted these experiments with Sobrietol. Given the extent of this reporting, it constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources and establishes the product's notability per WP:GNG. Obviously, if we did have articles in peer reviewed medical journals, these would be sources reliable for showing "efficacy and safety of drugs", and we would use them in preference to television reporting. But we take subjects as we find them and do not require scientifically valid sources to establish notability. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I'll be back later and fix the article to reflect that the news reports don't assess E&S. —G716 <^T·_C> 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly. For an alleged "nutritional supplement", both the article and the official site are alarmingly coy about the ingredients. I was able to track down their patent, which indicates that it contains QADH, QALDH, and what looks to be mother of vinegar. There's some very dubious stuff going on here. You generally can't patent foods or recipes, and in the USA "nutritional supplements" aren't intended to "diagnose, cure, or treat any medical condition". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG, the deletion or retention of an article is not determined by whether we believe that its subject is legitimate or lawfully marketed, but rather by whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, a standard that the extensive television news coverage seems to meet. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In case this is kept, I added the list of ingredients mentioned in the patent. I'd be happier seeing this stay if the ingredients are in fact listed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Sources found by Kristen are enough to establish the notability of the subject . We are no here to pass judgment about the efficacy of the drug.--J.Mundo (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made. Spam has been removed, and sources easily indicate notability. MuZemike 17:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the product is very likely snake oil, but the coverage found demonstrates notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete, only about 3 WP:RS [67], the rest of the 8 mentions are press releases, and one which only mentions the product name along with other similar products. Sticky Parkin 18:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the product is discussed at length in five RS [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]. The standard of notability you appear to be applying, that the article's topic has been extensively discussed in at least four different WP:RS, greatly exceeds the requirements of WP:GNG :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sure it is bunk, but a modicum of reliable sources treat it more than trivially. I think that there is a WP:RECENTISM case to be made here, though. Article almost certainly requires active monitoring to prevent recidivism from TNGK's much-improved version. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deborean[edit]

Non-notable "eclectic" tradition of modern Wicca, which appears to be limited to just one Clan. Only one of the external links mentions it, and that's the organisation's own website. None of the further reading actually relates to this Clan, but to Celtic sprituality. A google search initially looks promising however the number of unique hits is only 24. Please note also that the article creator shares a user name with the owner of the Clan's website. role^player 04:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of 3rd party coverage for verifiability. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. faithless (^speak) 06:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete Temple Theatre[edit]

Non-notable theatre organization. The article appears to plagiarize text from the theatre's web site: [73] Pastor Theo (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 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 no consensus. Clearly, after no further contributions for ten days, the community has shown a lack of consensus to delete this. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Street_Sounds_(record_label)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(a) page title not as name was commonly used (one word),
(b) article so filled with spam and irrelevant information it cannot be saved,
(c) much better article now available [here] Centrepull (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~: Redirecting would have been a far simpler method than an AfD --JD554 (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind on the redirect vote. The article was clearly salvagable as the nominator wrote a new article (could have done that over the existing article and then moved it). However, at least two of the references (one of which is the company's official website) gives the label's name as Street Sounds (with a space)[74][75]. I'm no longer sure what is best with regard to this nomination. --JD554 (talk) 13:44, 8 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) 00:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one for the name, which matches their own website, but transfer the better content from the other article over. Then create redirect from the other to this one (regardless of plausibility of it as a search term). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise now that it would be best to delete the dreadful content, and insert a redirect. I had the relevant background to sift through the content, but the article was so badly written that I had to start from scratch. That's what I meant by 'article could not be saved'.

The relevant point about the name 'StreetSounds' is that the article is about the original (famous and culturally significant) 1980s record label. Discogs is not authoritative on this issue, and the current 'Street Sounds' label is a revival after the original went bust, and is not particularly notable. The label owner may well have changed the arrangement of the name. I am searching for more verification. Centrepull (talk) 06:30, 15 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 00:51, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Hill Transmission[edit]

Non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article needs work, but they do have an album available on a major label. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) 09:36, 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 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Signal Hill, Newfoundland and Labrador, because this commonly refers to the first wireless transatlantic message. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear from the above discussion what sort of research any of the discussants did to help to determine whether or not this band is notable. See WP:JNN. I saw at the band's bio on CD Baby that there were many reviews quoted from music mags and alternative newsweeklies, so I did further investigation. This band, it turns out, has received a reasonable amount of press coverage, with their albums being reviewed, with a report of their winning a radio station contest, and with a report about being included on a celebrity playlist. I've added several third-party sources just now. (Also, a Rolling Stone editor apparently wrote a positive review of the band—see this report—but I have not been able to reliably source that just yet.) There's enough there now for WP:GNG, or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:04, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources now in article meet WP:GNG. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 04:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough substantial coverage to warrant inclusion. They're not U2, yet, but they've got a lot more going for them than just a myspace page :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks fine now. JBsupreme (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SiBEAM[edit]

Delete unreferenced article about a small company that has no indication of its significance; it is also written like an advertisement. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A non-consumer tech business that contains no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:18, 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 Speedy delete G7 author request. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VisualBB[edit]

Contested prod. Software with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.I'm the developer of the software and I would like the page to remain up. I know I don't have a user base yet, but I'm working on that and I believe having a page on Wikipedia will help that. Psybadek
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to not yet be notable. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 21:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any reliable sources about it. JulesH (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the software was notable, someone other than the author would have written the WP article. -Atmoz (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and after the dev said that this had no user base and that this was, in effect, spamming, Strong Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empire3131 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 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 merge to Only Fools and Horses. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Time in Peckham[edit]

Apppears to have been a rumoured show for quite some time - no reliable sources either. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. D.M.N. (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. This show may never see the light of day. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, unverified. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources available for anyone who looks for them. [76] [77] [78] [79] etc. As a proposed prequel to the UK's most popular sitcom of all time (according to numerous surveys), this is clearly notable, whether it gets produced or not. JulesH (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and set Redirect to Only Fools and Horses. With respects to User:JulesH, as he is quite correct in that the proposed prequel is getting coverage in reliable sources that meet WP:GNG and that this attention does give the information a certain notability per guidelines, but since this is still at the pre-production stage, represents an idea from 1997, has not yet even been definitely cast, and despite the BBC announcing plans and scripts having been written, production has not begun and a seperate article is premature. A merge to the parent article protects the information and the sourcing, and will be available exactly where readers might expect to find it at this early stage, even if the prequel is never filmed. Once production begins, a seperate article might well be welcomed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 02:39, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect as suggested by Schmidt. There are certainly reliable sources and it does seem to meet WP:GNG, but is not ready to have its own article. FaerieInGrey (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. The subject has been covered in reliable sources, but the status of the production means it's not ready for a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as suggested by Schmidt until it warrants its own article PaulJones (talk) 00:12, 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. AFD isn't the place for ethinic disputes, clear cut no-consensus. Secret ^account 23:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESStonia[edit]

A nonnotable pejorative pun with the name "Estonia" used by anti-Estonian Russians. There is no analytical articles which discuss this term, only examples of usage. Mukadderat (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a failed attempt to translate into English a Russian pun. Incidentally, the cyrillic alphabet does not have the character "S". ("C" is used as the equivalent of the Latin "S"). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a failed attempt. It is exactly how it is spelt in Russian. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge content into Anti-Estonian sentiment. This is more than a neologism, it is a protologism, and I don't think english Wikipedia should be used as a vehicle to promote protologisms or be a venue for disgruntled Users to create WP:POINT articles because an AfD went against them. Martintg (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you voted to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend. Why's that? --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So did a lot of other people. The difference is that there are scholarly papers written on the Putinjugend, it has been subject so study and analysis. Not so with the term eSStonia, this article only describes its usage. Therefore it should be deleted and the content merged into Anti-Estonian sentiment. Martintg (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no scholarly papers written on Putinjugend. There are scholarly papers written on Pro-Kremlin youth groups, which use the term either in the title or in passing in the paper itself. There's a difference. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the article clearly states "The term perceives Estonia as a neo-Nazi state which glorifies its Nazi past whilst it desecrates war memorials dedicated to the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in the Great Patriotic War." That is sourced to 3 different sources, and describes the etymology and reasoning behind the term. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is an academic paper on the topic: Nasi - Die Putin-Jugend by Ulrich Schmid, professor of Russian culture and society at St. Gallen University. Martintg (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That paper is on Nashi, but which uses the word Putinjugend as a descriptor for the organisation. No difference here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand To use some arguments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend, I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. It's a wellknown term..., wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures., This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced., eSStonia is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place., etc. Well known Russian politician Konstantin Zatulin has used the term to describe Estonia within the context of the controversy, as have other political commentators in Russia. We have articles on Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin, Putinism, etc and these are terms which are either fringe terms or are used in a disparaging way. Edward Lucas, who frequently attacks Russia in his articles and books has used both Putinjugend and eSStonia in his articles, and is used as references in both articles (2 separate articles in this instance), and he himself recognises that eSStonia is a widely used term. So keep as per that, and for fighting systematic bias in Russian topics. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to expand? So in other words what you are saying is that this article eSStonia is just a WP:POINT creation by you because you disagree with the result of various AfDs for the articles Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin and Putinism. Martintg (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no point to it. It's a widely used term (as acknowledged by Edward Lucas), and it deserves an article. The only WP:POINT, I guess, is the hypocrisy that some will vote to keep or delete based upon their own biases, and not within policy. And as one can see from eSStonia, it is just as well sourced, as Putinjugend. The creation of this article has been done purely because the sources are there which describe what is behind the term, and also usage of the term in contemporary Russia. Nashi, the Young Guard, Komsomolskaya Pravda have used the term. Yabloko have asked regarding the legality of usage of the term (which nothing more is known about). And media outlets such as The Economist, MK Gazeta, Kommersant, Rosblat, Novaya Gazeta, Vzglyad, Grani.ru, Estonian Novosti, Svoboda News (RFE/RL) and Komsomolskaya Pravda have published information about the usage of the term. It's more than notable. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex below has put it quite succinctly. If our inclusion standards allow Putinjugend, based upon only a few sources using the term in passing, there is no difference for this one, except this one has documentary actual usage of the term in different sectors of Russian society. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - marginally notable neologism. Still the notability is established by multiple references to the independent reliable sources and some real-life newspaper campaign. Judging from the discussion on Putinjugend, I guess the notability threshold for the politically loaded neologisms seems to be quite low nowadays Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article tells: Along with the term eSStonia, President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves was referred to as IlveSS, and Prime Minister of Estonia Andrus Ansip was referred to as AnSSip. But an article that mentioned Putin-Dobby has been deleted, even with references to New York Times and BBC. Any logic? Do we want "Putin-Dobby" back?Biophys (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the notability threshold for the politically loaded neologisms seems to be quite low nowadays let us start raising it. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as long as neologisms like Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin, etc., are allowed in WP. Rationale for keeping is essentially the same. P.S. A note for uninvolved editors: It’s amazing to see how all this circus votes ‘delete’ here, while pushing ‘keep’ in, for instance, [80] and [81]. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alex Bakharev. KNewman (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sad thing does exist and you can not get rid of it by deleting the article. And it is good to know about it anyway.Warrington (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems the main argument for "Keep" here is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Putin-Dobby, with 118 news hits, certainly looks more notable than eSStonia with its total of 18 news hits. Martintg (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, with eSStonia kept, are you going to write Putinland article, for the fun of ethnic wars on wikipedia? Xuz (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See below --Russavia
Keep per Beatle Fab Four. ellol (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need such propaganda rubbish here, as we don't need Putin-Dobby or Putinland, either. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ha-ha. IP from Tallinn. "Provocation" from our Baltic friends? :))))) Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" is seen as a "provocation", what next? If you didn't know, 36% of Tallinn residents are ethnic Russian. Martintg (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no significant encyclopedic content. It is a nonnotable slur, a deliberate distortion of the name of the country. At best it belongs to wiktionary. Xuz (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pr WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The whole story is nothing more or less than a politically motivated "cheap jibe" according to the source provided by Russavia. Any possible "encyclopedic content" in the article should go either to Anti-Estonian sentiment or Estonia–Russia relations. The bottom line:Wikipedia doesn't need another article that deals with the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn controversy--Termer (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be a politically motivated POVFORK of Estonia, but then you state that any content should be moved to other articles? There are at least a half a dozen or so articles where a link to this article could be placed. It is no different to Putinjugend which compares Pro-Kremlin youth groups (note the NPOV title but which is a redlink) to NAZI Germany and in the same breathe also puts Putin down as being a NAZI. Edward Lucas, a prominent anti-Russian journalist, has stated that the term was widely used and even gives etymology behind the term. As people who "voted" to keep Putinjugend noted, I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. It's a wellknown term..., wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures., This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced., eSStonia is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place. Why should it be any different here? People have taken note of the apparent standards for inclusion into WP thru AfDs such as that are allowed, so there is no reason why this should not. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Putinjugend would be related here. Unless it's about making a WP:Point, like it seems, a little like if "Putinjugend is OK for Wikipedia, so should be eSStonia"? and sorry for my lack of "good faith" here, but cherry picking in Wikipedia a country of 1 million for a revenge of WP:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend is kind of pathetic I think. Why don't you guys pick on someone that fits your size if you want to make a point due to Putinjugend?--Termer (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Termer, with Edward Lucas, he has a reputation amongst many quarters of being a Russophobe, Estophile and Polonophile. Of course he will call it a "cheap jibe", because it is against Estonia. You will also note that in one of the articles he states "A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument." But one will note that less than a month before that he himself evoked NAZI name-calling with Putinjugend. (That article is used as a source in that article). But whether he regards it as a cheap jibe, or not, he lends notability to the term. Your latest comments seem to be a IDONTLIKEIT-like comment. WP is not censored, and as much as I hate having shit like this on WP, the AfD for Putinjugend showed us the standards for inclusion on WP, and it was on that basis that I have introduced this article, based upon those standards for inclusion. I don't write anything on WP that isn't notable. Also, you will note in the article that I have included the information that the Saint Petersburg branch of Yabloko asked for intervention because it is their belief that it breaches the Russian criminal code, but it appears nothing ever came from it. The reality of the matter is that a large section of Russia does believe that Estonia glorifies its NAZI past, whilst at the same time it desecrates Soviet war memorials, and 60% of Russians regard Estonia as an enemy of their nation...eSStonia is merely a notable manifestation of that belief. You don't like it, others may not like it, I don't like it, but it is a notable term, and it is notable Russian POV...or is that POV not allowed on WP anymore (if at all in the first place)? --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you keep confirming that "eSStonia" is only about a revenge for WP:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend? I think it speaks for itself and needs no further comments. Other than "eSStonia" as an ethnic slur in Russia is clearly WP:UNDUE in English Wikipedia unlike the term Putinjugend that has 9 returns in google scholar, and 21 @ google books--Termer (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confirming nothing. It is a term along the same lines as Evil Empire, Great Satan, Axis of Evil, Old Europe, Hindu Taliban, etc. It is a notable political neologism, not an ethnic slur. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Empire was repeatedly used by Ronald Reagan. You might have heard of him. He was an old movie actor come politician somewhere in Northern America. He's generally considered notable.

Great Satan was invented and popularised by Saddam Hussein. You might have heard of him. He was a bearded tyrant and warmonger who lived in Baghdad, and whose poor judgment in choosing friends ultimately became his undoing. He's generally considered notable.

Axis of Evil was invented by Karl Rove and popularised by George W. Bush. You might have heard of them. While neither had beards, both had poor taste in friends, and have been dethroned by their people by now. They're generally considered notable.

Which notable person has gone on record with a speech or article using eSStonia as a catchphrase? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-language internet [82] doesn't make "eSStonia" a notable political neologism. It's mentioned about 3X in coupler of English language newspapers, has zero results in any printed books pr WP:RS unlike Evil Empire with 13,400 returns in books. And you surely only talk about how Putinjugend is relevant to this discussion suggesting there is a connection here.--Termer (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is relevant: [83]. Biophys (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the relevance is about the Russian Putinjugend painting a picture of Estonia as a Fascist state? In case this is so, the only thing that would be relevant here is the Freedom in the World (report) and Estonia's and Russia's places in it. Where Estonia is listed as one of the Free countries in the world vs. Russia that is categorized as Not Free. Considering such facts the proposed parallelism between 2 articles eSStonia and Putinjugend suggested by Russavia has no basis whatsoever.--Termer (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-language internet most definitely makes it notable, as it explicitly says that the term is used in Russia. And English-language sources have also commented on it. As to Digwuren's questions, a term does not have to be uttered by a notable person to make it notable, but it has been used by notable entities such as Nashi, Young Guard, Komsomolskaya Pravda, and its usage has also been mentioned by The Economist, MK Gazeta, Kommersant, Rosbalt, Novaya Gazeta, Vzglyad, Grani.ru, Estonian Novosti, Svoboda News (RFE/RL) and Komsomolskaya Pravda, plus more. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren, Konstantin Zatulin, a member of the State Duma and director of the Institute of CIS Studies has used this term, as per this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on disruption I do not much care if this article remains or not, I'm here to analyse an obvious breaching of WP:POINT. There are a set of users here who have been violently opposing similar articles about Russia or the Russian government, often because of their own nationalist feelings. I remember how User:Russavia, the creator of this ESStonia article, even argumented that "ESStonia was not acceptable either" as an argument to oppose those articles. Those articles are now cited by them as a reason to keep this article even though they still oppose the cited examples. This article is quite obviously created not to improve the quality of wikipedia, but only for battleground purposes, and thereby widening the gap between the already-disrupted relations between Russian nationalist editors who do everything to protect the post-soviet Russian government, and those writing critically or neutraly about Russian history (including other Russians). WP:POINT clearly states: It can sometimes be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. Such tactics are considered to be disruptive and spiteful, as others are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition.. I don't think this is acceptable and it should be remembered. Grey Fox (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, originally voted delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend. The result of this AfD was "No consensus". In his complaint to User:Xasha over the outcome of that Afd, he raises the idea of creating eSStonia in retaliation. Again he mentions the prospect of this creating article during request to the closing admin User:Stifle to reconsider his closure. When Russavia then does follow through and creates the article in his userspace first, admin User:Orangemike expressed the problems of notability, again Russavia cites the Putinjugend article as his justification. After moving the article into mainstace, he further justifies the creation of eSStonia by claiming "Putinjungend is the rebuttal". Martintg (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assumption of good faith there Grey-Fox. For the record, on Putinjugend AfD you expressed your opinion of "Putinjugend is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place.". The only place I have even mentioned eSStonia is here; you should remember it, as you all stalked me there, and I raised the question in would people use the same arguments? I went ahead and created the article in userspace (which Martintg tried having speedied by stalking me) and I ensured that it is notable and NPOV before placing into mainspace. It is notable, as there is a source which explains what the term means, and then there are sources which give usage of the term. It's as simple as that. And be careful Grey-Fox when accusing me of such rubbish, because I do recall that you gamed the system in removing information from a peer-reviewed reliable source which described Litvinenko as a one-man disinformation bureau. But anyway, this discussion is on this article, and this article alone. Is it a notable term? Yes it is, because it is described by multiple reliable sources. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did vote delete in Putinjugend, Martintg, for it is in my belief not a notable term. But many editors, including most of those who are actually attacking me now here, "voted" keep, even though I demonstrated that it's usage is very low. You even made the utterly ridiculous comment on the article talk page that "Nashi" is the neologism. But due to the outcome of that AfD, it has been determined that it is a notable term, so there is no reason that this is not a notable term also. I don't believe that any of this shit honestly belongs in an encyclopaedia, but going by past AfD's it seems opinion is against me (and others). Don't forget to mention also that you stalked me, and that after Orangemike speedied it, I contacted him and he re-instated it, and you again tried to speedy it, which I reverted, and which you then tried to get arbitration enforcement unsuccessfully on me. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You virtually admitted that you created this article in reponse to Putinjugend. This is classic WP:POINT behaviour, which clearly states: "It can sometimes be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. Such tactics are considered to be disruptive and spiteful, as others are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition..". Martintg (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have virtually admitted nothing. I have stated very clearly and I mean what I say and I say what I mean. This is a term which I had heard of in the past, and which I believed was notable, but was unsure if it were notable enough for WP. Given the AfD for Putinjugend, plus other AfDs, it was then my belief that this indeed a notable term for inclusion on WP. Most of the opposes miss the fact that there are sources for this information and are based probably upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Russavia, I'm not going to bother disussing this with you like you enjoy discussing every tiny thing for hours, if not days. You've already uttered a couple of personal attacks on this page and the evidence on your disruptive behaviour speaks for itself. Grey Fox (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easy decision as this is neither notable nor encyclopedic. Ostap 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we can and should (and indeed do) mention this in Anti-Estonian sentiment, but to have an article created solely because another article the creator didn't like was kept is silly. We shouldn't have to accommodate WP:POINT violators that way. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a retaliation for keeping the article Putinjugend [84] and described by the article creator as in the group of "fringe terms which are used only to disparage the subject." I have to agree with that assessment, the term seems fringe, hence delete. Hobartimus (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand. Esstonia is a good sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place. Google search for "esstonia" gives 408.000 hits (results to assure some corellation between term and meaning in this article). Thus, it is justified as a standalone article. I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasuresXasha (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the name of an ArbCom decision named after me (yay!) I, Digwuren, point out that Xasha's comment here is in violation of a topic ban by AGK. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Note that this comment was made by a user who has left Wikipedia, but not before adding his vote here, out of spite, it would seem. Note too the conspiracy the article's creator engaged in with this user before creating it. Should we really keep such tainted material? - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy? It was an observation of mine made to another editor. Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinisms (2nd nomination), which looked like this at the time of deletion, in which a slew of editors voted keep based not upon policy, but on their opinions. And often it is done just to oppose the person who is nominating. I can show an example of where an editor who is stalking my edits noticed an image which I nominated for discussion, and he stalked me to the IfD and placed a simple "Keep" vote, and then lied and said it had been discussed before (which it had not).

Delete. This is wrong Google query above. The term seems to be insufficiently notable. All useful content should be moved to Russian propaganda or "Anti-Estonian sentiment". See also arguments by Marting.Biophys (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is as notable as Putinjugend or Phone Call to Putin. It has as many valid references as those terms. It isn't just Anti-Estonian sentiment, but it has a place also in Estonia–Russia relations, Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, Bronze Night, Aftermath of the Bronze Night, 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian), Monument of Lihula, plus others. The term is clearly notable, as WP shows this time and time and time and time again, and merging it seems, is a matter for editors, not AfD. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"eSStonia" is a term now? Perhaps you simply don't know what a term means? Or else in what kind of subject matter this kind of supposed terminology is used?--Termer (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a revenge article, should be deleted per WP:POINT alone. Because of the Economist article title it may be mentioned in the article anti-Estonian sentiment, but in a much shorter form. (A sentence about this is sufficient.) Squash Racket (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tad bit WP:BIAS. Why are Komsomolskaya Pravda, Novaya Gazeta, Kommersant, etc not regarded as reliable sources here to establish notability? It's no different to terms such as Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, Freedom fries, Great Satan, Evil Empire, Hindu Taliban, etc. WP is supposed to have a world wide view of realities in that world. Just where is the WP:POINT? I didn't create the article in order to have it listed here, I created the article because past AfDs have noted that notability can be established. I have never expressed a personal opinion that Estonia is a neo-Nazi state, and I have merely stated in the article what the reliable and notable sources say, for this is what we do on WP, is it not? --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- As I so patiently explained above, those catchphrases are not notable on their own; they're notable because somebody notable advanced them. Who is that elusive notable person who advanced this one? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You didn't patiently explain anything, you are claiming for a term to be notable that is needs to be uttered by a notable person. That is not how WP works, for if it worked like that we could start an article on Fucking lunatic, a term advanced by Sergey Lavrov to describe Misha, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. They, including this term, is notable, because it and its usage has been covered by reliable sources. Anyway, if you would care to look above, your question was answered some time ago. There are now some thirteen sources on the article which establishes notability as per what is community consensus on many previous AfDs and the notability guideline itself, and the nominators reason that it being non-notable is not correct. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since many similar neologism articles mentioned above were kept, this should consequently be kept as well. Offliner (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: Those that support "Keep" assert that notability is established by the usage of the term within the Russian media and internet. While this may well be true in the case of Russian Wikipedia, it is not true in regard to English Wikipedia. Within english usage there are only two press articles in regard to the term, both published in the Economist within weeks of each other and most likely written by the same author. There is no other usage elsewhere in the English language media. If the standard of notability of a term (which Wiktionary is more suited) is prevalence in foreign language media and internet, then foreign derogatory terms like "tiblastan" could be considered as notable as "eSStonia". This is nuts. Martintg (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would not the English language sources (The Economist) give notability to the term for English WP? By the way Tiblastan has not even been mentioned by a reliable English language source. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added scholarly source which states "Note the altered spelling of Estonia: “eSStonia” makes a reference to the Nazi Waffen SS units of World War II, effectively accusing Estonia of fascism." --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hoped something could be salvaged here, but (see the talkpage) I've now come to conclusion that this is a hopeless WP:COATRACK article with no hope of redemption. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yet another AfD has closed as keep, and it was mentioned that one of the sources which lends it's hand to the notability was the existence of this article which stated that the term is widely used in Russia (even though not a single editor answered any questions asked of them asking for other sources, which is a common thing it seems). Using that article is no different to using this source and this source to establish the same notability in English wikipedia. I also notice that User:Termer has changed his opinion from the article being a WP:POVFORK of Estonia, to being a WP:SOAPBOX. WP:SOAPBOX is not valid in this instance either, as I am not expressing my belief in the article that Estonia is a fascist state, blah blah blah, but have presented what the sources state. And those sources now come from Russia, Latvia, Estonia, United States and the UK. Not speaking Estonian though doesn't help me, as it has been mentioned also in other Estonian press such as this, this, and this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ye, lets keep it simple: any suggestion that "Estonia is a fascist state" without an attempt to describe the topic from a WP:NPOV on Wikipedia would be WP:SOAPBOXing. Not only because of the Freedom in the World (report) is in conflict with such an idea, but more relevant would be the Warning that is clear about it: All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground...in particular, by making generalized accusations that...a particular national group ...harbor Nazi sympathies -. So until the article keeps advancing the position of "Estonia is a Fascist state" by even ignoring the sources provided in the article itself that speak about exact opposite, Sorry but I can't see the whole thing in any other way than WP:SOAPBOXing.--Termer (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop gaming Arbcom decisions. I have at no time said that "Estonia is a fascist state" or that "Estonians are fascists or nazis". I have, however, included into an article on what is a notable subject, the opinion garnered from reliable sources that some hold the opinion that Estonia is a fascist state, and have attributed it accordingly. For example, the article reads, "Nashi also evoked the term when they accused the Estonian state of cultivating fascism", it does not read "Russavia thinks that Estonia is a fascist state" (because not only is it against policy for me to place my own opinion in articles, but because it's not something I agree with). And don't accuse me of writing POV articles, for I have ensured that they are stated as claims and opinions, rather than matters of fact, attribution is provided where required, and have provided other information such the opinions of Yabloko and Edward Lucas. There is an inherrent difference here. And your Freedom in the World (report) is absolutely irrelevant also. Just have the nouse to admit that it is a notable term, and you don't like it. Wikipedia is not censored, and has to portray realities as they exist in the world in a neutral fashion. AfD is not an avenue for a content dispute, so if you don't believe the article is WP:NPOV, then WP:SOFIXIT --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why this is soapboxing because you have only included "that some hold the opinion that Estonia is a fascist state" but excluded opposing viewpoints that say exact opposite available in the same sources that you have used. You're not only excluding the opposing sources but claim that Freedom in the World (report) is absolutely irrelevant. There is one thing you're right on though, I don't like this new WP:BATTLEGROUND you have created on Wikipedia.---Termer (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a battleground, it's an article on a notable term which is used in the real world, and has been quite widely used. It's fine to sit back and bitch about the article, but it is another thing to actually WP:SOFIXIT, which is something you have not done, except for slapping an NPOV tag on the article and placing a section Background with a link to the irrelevant Freedom in the World (report) article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that you don't read the talk page, as I've clearly said there is no point to fix an article that is listed for an AfD. And not to worry, in case it's not going to be deleted, fix is going to happen. Perhaps you're not simply aware of the alternative viewpoints and therefore you have left those out, and have misinterpreted many facts in the article, and have inserted some statements that are simply not true. So I can promise you're going to find out shortly in case this can of worms stays open.--Termer (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the talk page, and all I see is gaming of policies and the like, claiming OR, when it is obvious that everything is sourced, and coatrack which again is rubbish, as the article deals completely with the term, and the term only. And I must say that it's my opinion that it's pretty ridiculous not to even attempt to fix an article on a notable subject in the hope that it will be deleted, simply because you don't like it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting it, do you? What I don't like is you using Wikipedia to make a POINT here by creating an article in response to Putinjugend. Regarding "eSStonia" by itself than I'm more on the same page with CharlotteWebb. I take "eSStonia" like a ridiculous joke, and I always do like jokes, just that I don't think such a soapboxing joke has has any encyclopedic value to it. And again, in case the Afd outcome sees it differently and the article is not going to be deleted, I'll fix it and list the facts in the article that you have left out. I just don't want to take any chanses and work on something that might end up in a garbage bin anyway.--Termer (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bakharev and Beatle Fab Four. You may notice that pretty same people arguing against each other in all these Afds. I wonder how they would argue (keep or delete) if all these pejoratives or slang terms were put for deletion in bulk. Yes I know it is not possible, as there can be not bargaining in WP such as you let me delete this and I will let you delete that. Yet I am curious. (Igny (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Seems referenced as a notable political slogan.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to satiric misspelling which covers this sort of humor. — CharlotteWebb 03:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As per Alex Bakharev's statement. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More on notability The term has also seen exposure by the BBC [85], except they have spelt it эс-эс-тония, which is spelt the way it is spoken, rather than the more prevalent эSSтония. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in case this can of worms stays open, what's next? an article or a list like Russian smear campaigns? After all the term has 261 returns in google and 3 in google books. Looks like much more notable term than "eSStonia" that by itself would fit right into the main article along with many other subchapters. So perhaps it would be better to keep and expand this article indeed so that all relevant smear campaigns could be listed in a central article?--Termer (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Propaganda in Russia, a subcategory of Category:Propaganda and Category:Russian politics as well as Category:Propaganda by country? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Propaganda in Russia is a notable topic, and is an NPOV title for Russian smear campaigns, which by the way, your book references are from 1963, 1972 and 1972 respectively, which is not Russia but the Soviet Union. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete/redirect to Anti-Estonian sentiment. The article has virtually no independent content. Russavia simply digs more and more newsrefs which merely mention the term, with no additional encyclopedic content (which is none, just a dicdef mixed with a bunch of usage cases and info related to Bronze Soldier topic rather than to the word). - 7-bubёn >t 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can one say it has virtually no independent content? We have sources from the Baltic Times, The Economist (x2), Moskovskiy Komsomolets, Defense Technical Information Center, KM.ru, Rosbalt, Kommersant, Novaya Gazeta, Baltic Business News, and Komsomolskaya Pravda (re: cost of boycott). The only primary source is one from Komsomolskaya Pravda, which is then backed up by the Baltic Times and Baltic Business News sources; and then one source from Nashi, which is used to source Nashi also evoked the term when they accused the Estonian state of cultivating fascism, by removing the Bronze Soldier memorial, the unsolved murder of Dmitry Ganin on Bronze Night, the arrest and detention of Mark Siryk by the Kaitsepolitseiamet on Bronze Night, and a memorial to the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) being built. The rest of the article, as shown, is sourced to independent sources, and the BBC Russian source which you removed also lends more independent sourcing, if one wants to claim that the Moskovskiy Komsomolets is a primary source. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is nothing but someone used the term for some reason. Nothing beyond dictionary definition. - 7-bubёn >t 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Step right up folks, get your tickets here, the Grand Re-Opening of Putinland is only days away. We at Putinland look forward to you being our guest in our wonderous 17 million sq km theme park. Choose from one of our many fine accommodation houses, such as the five star Lubyanka Hilton, the 3 1/2 star Lefortovo Holiday Inn, and for those on a budget, you can't go wrong with the historic Moscow Serbsky Youth Hostel. We do apologise in advance, our self-contained apartments are undergoing major renovations and are not fit for our guests. There is plenty for you and your family to do whilst in Putinland. Enjoy a relaxing evening at the theatre! Child care facilities are available for those with children. SPECIAL FOR THE OPENING MONTH. Every guest will enjoy a 10 minute phone call to the Managing Director of Putinland. Your stay at Putinland will be electrifying, so much so that you may not want to ever leave. For those of you on an extremely limited budget, you may want to try the alternative theme park; it's not as popular as Putinland, in no small part to the lack of management experience by its managing director, so much so that he sold all of the park's attractions to a foreign theme park. But don't despair, they have a freak show with the main attraction, "Is it a woman, man or beast. You tell us" (there's not a chance in hell I am gonna wikilink that). Looking forward to seeing this in mainspace soon. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the reverted edit of Russavia: Russavia, if you want something to say about the coming article by Marting, say it straight, without tricks. Wikipedia is not a game zone. Regardiung Putinjugend, if you don't like the article, please write Pro-Putin youth movements or something, instead of complaining. If someone wants to turn wikipedia into political battle, you are not helping to prevent this. - 7-bubёn >t 05:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SemBubenny You have no sense of humour. Sorry if I mistook WP for a theme park, but I didn't realise it was a Gulag either. Oh wait, that's User:Martintg/Putinland - a theme park and Gulag rolled into one. Anyone with a sense of humour can see it here. And thanks for the barnstar Termer, we needn't be at each others throats all the time, humour is good for the soul. SemBubenny, please take note. Also, this has nothing to do with the existence of Putinjugend or Phone Call to Putin, or anything else in terms of "revenge articles" -- it does have something to do with them in the sense that those, and many other AfDs, hell Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hui Voine! even closed as a keep, so don't say that I have turned anything into a political battle, we have shitloads of propaganda terms used against Russia on WP, but this may be one of the first Russian terms directed towards parties outside of Russia, and that's what people don't like.--Russavia ^Dialogue 06:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC) --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't slide from jokes into insults and review the article Godwin's law (re: your mention of gulag). Please be advised that people over the globe have very different undetrstanding of humor, and I had quite sad experience here. - 7-bubёn >t 06:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-instated my previous post, it is light-hearted, and if you had a bad experience somewhere, I'm sorry for that, but Wikipedia is not censored, and even your position as an admin does not give you the authority to go around censoring discussions (and dare I say it, deleting files without discussion), when it is obvious it is humour; if it's not to your tastes, then skip paste it. There was no attacking of any editors, and there was no WP:BLP. We are not here on WP as one big group of single-minded clones, but as individuals, and individuals will bring with them knowledge, and their own style. You say WP is not a game zone, I say that WP is supposed to be fun, not so mind-numbingly boring that we have to be careful what we say because an overbearing admin may take issue with something that is said for which no offence was intended, nor received as by other editors. People around the globe may have different understanding of humour, but this does not mean that I or anyone has to conform with your standards, nor does it mean that you have to conform with ours. I thought it was the melting pot that was what was supposed to make WP a good thing. So again in short, don't censor other's words simply because you don't like it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CENSORED is applicable to article space. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for free speech: it is an environmernt for creating encyclopedia. Wikipedia is very much censored in discussions. If you persist, you may be blocked for your jokes which are nothing but attack of other editors, and hence a disruption of wikipedia. - 7-bubёn >t 07:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete/redirect to Anti-Estonian sentiment with additional info added to that article. As per other arguments. I also strongly feel that the Putinjugend article ought to be deleted and moved into a section under Nashi. ESStonia seems to merely be a popular, widely used slur against Estonia just as Putinjugend seems to be popular, widely used slur against pro-Kremlin youth groups. The history and usage of each of these terms seem notable enough to warrant inclusion in the respective articles but not enough to deserve their own article in my opinion.Faustian (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: putinjugend. This was suggested several times in this page for those who don't like it. Yet some prefer play insulted Russia: Less work, more political fun. - 7-bubёn >t 06:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. What is the encyclopaedic value of this article? Very little I belive. An anti-Estonian slur does not warrant an article, a mere passage would suffise. --Hillock65 (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing that would indicate notability in the encyclopedic sense. JBsupreme (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Sockpuppet I have filed this report over what I believe is a case of sockpuppeting in this AfD by an editor. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AGF in you is waning, young padawan. There's no puppetry. It is my vote, because I originally believed the article could become encyclopædic. I forgot to log in, but I didn't bother when I recalled that AFDs aren't votes, and I believed my argument would stand on its own.

Over time, I realised that the article is hopeless, so I changed my vote. In order to avoid double voting, I -- naturally -- removed my original vote when casting a new one. It's the standard protocol for vote changes, after all.

Your puppetry claims might have some merit if I hadn't deleted the original vote. But as you can clearly see, that is not the case here. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is a case of a possible Good Faith tragically missing here. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Digwuren. Unfortunately, it does not appear it is a 'tragic mistake', the only tragic thing is that Digwuren was caught. He made out other users were responsible, and it is obvious from Martintg's own words that even he did not know it was Digwuren. All the evidence is now there. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're searching for those elusive straws to beat me over with, you might as well claim that calling my own address "disgruntled IP" once I became disgruntled with my initial vote constituted a vicious attack on myself, and a flagrant violation of WP:NSA. How about that? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:37, 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 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iruma Rioka[edit]

Delete article does not assert that any of the CDs released were on a notable label or other notability; sources likely to be in Japanese hampers the ability to determine whether sufficient coverage exists, but given that 2 of the 3 sources are not independent, there's only 1 to be given benefit of doubt: fails WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to satisfy notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. --DAJF (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent sources to establish WP:N. --Artene50 (talk) 03:47, 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 withdraw nomination due to invalidity of claims given references. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 05:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Little else is known about the school". To me, this is a case of missing notability. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 00:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School of condors[edit]

Keep: This appears to be a case of lost in translation. "School of Condors" turns up little, but the Spanish spelling "Escuela de Condores" turn up more. Some sources a Google search turned up:

Based on the sources a quick Google search turned up, I think the subject of the article passes WP:Notability/WP:ORG. Weak article, notable subject. The article needs work, not deletion. If the article is kept, a redirect from "Escuela de Condores" should be added, or this article should be moved to that name, replacing this article with a redirect to that name. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some of the links aren't working right... Try http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Bolivia/default.htm and http://www.photius.com/countries/bolivia/national_security/bolivia_national_security_military_schools.html directly.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not gonna !vote because the article is so small and unsourced it's not worth keeping, however the nom's complaint is notability, which Jo7hs2 seems to have taken care of. If it's kept I would suggest moving to this name. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I said I was open to both, but I think if the article is kept, we should leave it at the name "School of Condors", and create a redirect from "Escuela de Condores" to it. I feel that way because it really is just a spanish-english translation of "school of", not a name, per se, since condor is the same in both languages. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Made Improvements): I have made significant improvements to the article. I ordinarily don't do much article rescue work, but in this case the school appears to have historical notability, and that notability is shown via several sources meeting WP:Notability, including a book, so I had to do what I could. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is sourced and notability has been established. --J.Mundo (talk) 01:15, 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 redirect to Quake II#Quake II engine. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qfusion[edit]

This video game is just another Quake knockoff. According to the article: "Qfusion is particularly notable because War§ow, a popular free standalone game is based on the engine." It's claiming its notability off of another site, which isn't allowed as notability isn't inherited. That and the lack of independent sources have led me to believe that this game fails WP:N. Tavix (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Nasica (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Quake II#Quake II engine if WP:V can be satisfied (which currently isn't.) Does not appear to have received enough significant coverage from reliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 17:03, 14 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, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - There are four news articles that mention the engine. Some academic works[86][87][88][89] by mostly the same authors describe how the engine was used in their research. SharkD (talk) 04:08, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jael Rogers[edit]

Delete a declined prod but is being a Rhodes Scholar sufficient to be notable, even if the person didn't finish his studies (I'm not sure that BLP applies since he was born in the 1880s and would be at least 120 today) - the article asserts notability - in bold text, no less - but doesn't deliver any. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that not every Rhodes Scholar is notable simply for having received the scholarship. There have been between 50 and 90 of them very year since 1902, after all. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is zippity-do-dah available on this guy; just being mentioned in one book about Rhodes Scholars does not get you past WP:BIO or whichever subcriterion applies here (be it WP:ACADEMIC or otherwise). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just came across this article and discovered the AFD template had been removed yesterday. I've put it back. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can you delete this? He's a historic figure with several pages of discussion in the book that is cited (admittedly to Canadian Amazon but that is no excuse), and the fact that you have not heard of him is barely helpful. Has Wikipedia really now started deleting pages about factual historical figures whose lives have included actual achievements and that have been detailed in books published by respectable publishers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alph8 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:BIO criteria are satisfied here! Just look: this satisfies both "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (it cites a book available on Amazon and published by Yale University Press and moreover if that wasn't enough (which it is under WP:BIO), "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them". You can't deny this scholarship is notable (just check out Rhodes Scholarship for the very proof). Call it a stub if you want, or call for more specifics, but don't be overzealous in demanding deletion. Why so zealous? Edittah (talk) 21:16, 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 keep. There is no consensus to delete, and merge discussions can occur outside of Afd. Nice job finding the sources, but please add them to the article to improve it. :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Versificator[edit]

This is a minor device in the novel and is mentioned in one paragraph in the entire novel. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 17:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A merge discussion can proceed on the article talk page. Bu tthis imoprtant fictional element in one of the most famous and important works of fiction in the last 100 years is worth including in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the novel article. Article is a fancruft and no use in this context besides the novel. Remember that notability is not inherited. By the way, the word actually means "poet". ^LeaveSleaves 17:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell was using the word in the sense of a mechanical versifier or poetaster. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Books search finds plenty of sources that discuss this. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Phil Bridger. Schuym1 (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Phil Bridger and ChildofMidnight. I have not read 1984 recently but am sure the versificator is discussed in more than one paragraph? I seem to recall a popular song that recurs throughout the book. Anyway, an important concept in a very important work - deserves an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect: There are plenty of Google book hits, but none of them constitute a substantive discussion- instead, most of them just mention and define it, leaving me to believe that there aren't sufficient sources to support an entire article. If there's been significant discussion of it somewhere, that's fine, but just a definition of the term isn't enough to make an article. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know which ones you looked at, but those I checked also tended to enter into a short discussion of Orwell's motivations for including such a device in the book, generally concluding that it was a comment on a trend Orwell had observed towards unremarkable and bland consumerised entertainment. While this tends to only take a few sentences, it seems to be enough to make the references non-trivial. JulesH (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge: It's not even mentioned in Nineteen Eighty-Four: does it really need a separate article? Redirect/merge until such a time as the content justifies a separate article. Rd232 ^talk 12:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. Plenty of sources. The article may remain a short one, because there isn't much to say, but what there is is worth saying. JulesH (talk) 10:52, 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 Redirect. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbag[edit]

Not notable enough. Just the opening song from Duke Nukem 3D. That alone isn't notable enough. Plenty of games have had memorable songs, but they do not deserve an article alone. ScienceApe (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Duke Nukem. If someone wants to expand Duke Nukem to a proper series page, I'm sure it will garner some attention there at some point in the future. --Izno (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. No references. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, possible search term, otherwise not notable. Marasmusine (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:39, 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 Redirect. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day (news music)[edit]

Not notable. Composer is notable, but that doesn't make this "music package" notable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frank Gari, surely.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why didn't I think of that? :-) If this article is redirected to Frank Gari, I would be happy to withdraw this AfD. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:04, 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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JP Cadorin[edit]

Delete local television sports personality, fails WP:N, so nn we don't know when or where he was born. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's damn near nothing out there, none of which gives any indication this person passes WP:BIO in any way. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar Crisis[edit]

No multiple reliable sources indicating notability, delete as per WP:WEB. Peephole (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it would be nice to know how extensive the PC Gamer review was. The article doesn't say if it was the UK or US edition, but I've left a message for an editor through the VG project's magazine dept. Marasmusine (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Note. Even if the PC Gamer review is more than cursory, we should aim for multiple sources to establish notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB.ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's and old game, so it's feasable that the game was covered more at that time. However, in those days the coverage was more likely to be in print magazines or in websites that are now defunct. SharkD (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried doing a search on the Wayback Machine and findarticles.com without results, though I'm not entirely sure how the search engine works. SharkD (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If this indeed is the first web based online game then it should have an article. Being from 1993 it doesn't surprise me that sources are hard to come by. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stratix[edit]

Fails WP:CORP and WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If it stays, here's some coverage to make it less peacocky: [90].—Preceding unsigned comment added by THF (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Majority coverage is through press releases. There is indication that the company has some achievements [91], [92]. But I'm not sure about notability of first award and wasn't able to confirm the second listing. If someone can sort out these two cases, I'm willing to consider vote change. ^LeaveSleaves 16:52, 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) 00:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find evidence of notability other than the one THF turned up, and am skeptical about the neutrality of the two sources found by Sleaves. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Gupta[edit]

Fails WP:N. Subject ran a group blog, which received some incidental media coverage following the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, but even that project is long defunct. Note: Main contributor to the article, User:Fadereu, says he is Rohit Gupta. Abecedare (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self-advertisement (checked earlier version of User:Fadereu's userpage), non-notable.--GDibyendu (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Abecedare (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Joe the Plumber also received incidental media coverage. I don't see why this scenario is different. ScienceApe (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not Joe the Plumber. The article is uninformative and unreferenced; Google news has tons of hits for "Rohit Gupta," but unfortunately there's dozens of em. Our Gupta doesn't appear until hit 31, an article that establishes that he was not the main man in this SEA-EAT blog--he was one of the bloggers, one of 50 only days after the tsunami. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 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) 00:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe the little man on the horse. JBsupreme (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DarkIce[edit]

Free software package with no assertion or evidence of notability. I PRODded it, also noting that it had no third-party references, but the PROD was removed and a reference - a post on a mailing list - was added. I see no sign that this software has any encyclopedic notability. Stormie (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Stormie (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability given. --fvw * 21:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone I removed PROD since googling gives lots of links: audio streaming darkice and audio encoder darkice, e.g. darkice at linuxconsulting.ro and Icecast amaroK script. By deleting PROD tag I wanted to attract attention of more experienced audience to this topic. DarkIce seems not to be a dead project, moreover, there are some traces of its usage in google. I don't have enough time nor experience in subject to prove that googled-sources are reliable but hope this discussion will attract experts how can. --Wallach2008 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a Google test too, and it seemed that all the top links were software distribution sites and posts about DarkIce on forums, etc. I certainly wasn't seeing any sign of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (e.g. magazine articles). --Stormie (talk) 03:14, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Isn't for AFD. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cassidy Project[edit]

Delete/merge No content beyond what appears on Cassidy (musician). Plastikspork (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and merge it then. No need to bring this to AfD. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:07, 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 redirect to console wars. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 07:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Console bashing[edit]

non-notable neologism. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, not notable term. Redundant with console wars although that article is itself pretty silly. Fletcher (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to console wars. This seems to me the same subject but from a very slightly different angle. —Noah 05:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find a good reason to invent an unlikely neologism, doesn't warrant a redirect. JBsupreme (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 08:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Console wars as a plausible search term. Otherwise, there is nothing else that is not mentioned in that article. MuZemike 08:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to console wars at best. At least one 2004 news article uses "console bashing" in a completely different sense. As a term it clearly hasn't even entered the lexicon of most gamers- while it's an "obvious" definition, that doesn't merit an article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Console wars. It might deserve its own article on Wiktionary, but not here. SharkD (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Although 'Console wars' might be considered a broader topic, it covers everything that would be considered relevant to this topic. C4Cypher (talk) 21:08, 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 speedy redirect to Susie (TV program). I'm gonna be bold here. No deletion is required to make a redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Elelman[edit]

Seems to lack independent notability under WP:ENTERTAINER beyond being the host of a TV show for which there is already an article ("Susie"). Even if there was notability, the article is barren - there's nothing in this article to merge into the article on her TV show. Suggest deleting or redirecting to Susie Simon Dodd (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting the title to the TV show seems most logical to me. Bearcat (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable host. JamesBurns (talk) 07:01, 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.