< January 24	January 26 >

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 02:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian Morrissi[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Ms Morrissi's nationality is Welsh so one might expect to find significant coverage of her using Google if we restrict our search to the UK. Unfortunately, there are only five hits when I do this[1] and nothing useful. Google News throws up one hit from which we learn that she performed at a charity fund-raising function at which attendees enjoyed a six-course meal[2] and police officers donated their services to take photographs of guests arriving[3]. Googling using her full name, "Rhian Louise Morrissi" throws up to hits to the BBC website[4]; although my Welsh is not good(!), both of these links refer to the same event, the Eisteddfod Genedlaethol Cymru, and have the appearance of only mentioning her (and others) in passing, that is, the significant coverage here is about the Eisteddfod and not her. Searches through the major UK broadsheets, the Independent, The Times, The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph, yields nothing nor do searches through a selection of Welsh papers[5][6][7][8]. Regretfully, delete on the basic that there exists no significant coverage of Ms Morrissi in reliable sources independent of the subject per WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Booty[edit]

Article fails to meet WP:N, also, those of you arguing that there are other xbox live games that have pages, please view WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep widely reviewed video game [9], [10], [11], many many ghits.. JJL (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It isn't an achievement to get a review by a publication who's job is to review games.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N speaks to independent coverage, not achievement (nor ..."fame," "importance," or "popularity...").

Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator does not understand WP:N. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - How about you actually take a look at the policy, and the article before you go insulting people. I understand WP:N perfectly well, three sources in hardly significant.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an insult, it was a statement. WP:N does not require independent coverage to be spectacular, it just requires that there IS independent coverage. The thing is that you seem to have put a time limit on when an article can get sources, and instead of bringing up a discussion about this article's problems, you used AfD, which is not the proper venue for article improvement. If you felt it as an insult, it wasn't. I was stating what my argument was, and the argument was that the rationale for deletion was that it violated WP:N, when it didn't. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — one need not go far (look at the game's web page here) to find evidence of significant coverage via reliable secondary sources as well other nominations that easily establish notability. I have also taken the liberty to do basic cleanup and copyediting so that it looks somewhat encyclopedic and not like a directory entry or an advertisement or possibly something copy-and-pasted from another site. MuZemike 03:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Per the above.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airburst[edit]

Article fails to meet WP:N, also, those of you arguing that there are other xbox live games that have pages, please view WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — there is some significant coverage here, but 1) some users may question the reliability of this source, and 2) I could not find the same coverage in other reliable sources. Needs more to fully establish notability. MuZemike 03:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a second review by the same source, except for the Non-Extreme version. SharkD (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. This is a legit game, including one that's being remade for XBLA. Furthermore, it's one of Strange Flavour's key games, and a major game on Mac OS. I have no idea why in the world it would be considered for deletion. (PS: Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing subst:adw|Airburst on their talk page(s). I received no such notification.) JAF1970 (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you have reliable sources to prove its notability though? Gary King (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing in that above argument, Jaf1970, makes any argument in regards to the game's notability. Many things can be claimed to be, or said to be, legit, that doesn't make them so, however.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the strength of coverage for the Mac versions, in addition to the two different games being reviewed on Inside Mac Games (per first two comments) there's a review of extreme on MacWorld, there's an interview type thing on Apple's website which helps with development info. Here's a substantial preview of the first game again on Inside Mac Games. Put them together and you've got a small but doable article which can be expanded if and when the XBLA version appears (apparently it's due right at the end of this year). Someone another 13:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, nice sleuthing. Keep due to reliable sources. Gary King (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources that were found. SharkD (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep per the sources found above. That should be enough to meet the GNG. MuZemike 02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Per the above sources, which were not present in the original article.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:26, 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 speedily deleted , sole author blanked page. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry potter name meanings[edit]

A glorious example of a load of indiscriminate "stuff", which Wikipedia is not repository for. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G7 – author has now blanked page. Cycle~ (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G12. Copyvio of http://www.carolynnetilgachandler.com/about/about.htm So Why 11:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carolynne Tilga[edit]

This article does not appear to meet WP:BIO and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteSounds like a fine and talented person. But the unreferenced list of accomplishments sound like things one would mention in Christmas letters. The article does not satisfy WP:BIO unless someone can find multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments espoused by Edison. Valrith (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails to meet the guidelines listed at WP:BIO, and therefore should be deleted unless it is improved to include good sourced information. Razor flame 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyvio from http://www.carolynnetilgachandler.com/about/about.htm and so tgagged. -- Whpq (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melmac (planet)[edit]

Poorly sourced, in universe entirely. Doesn't seem to have been covered in any reliable sources; the few that do exist are iffy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry, TPH, but I think its sourcing is alright. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 3, 4, and 5 are all unofficial sites of dubious reliability. Do you really think fan sites of that sort are reliable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cybertron. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per whom now? Cyberton didn't !vote in this. (Also, I almost thought this was a bogus vote placed by an at first, since your sig links to an IP usserpage.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should have said that it linked to the user page of the greatest IP editor Wiki ever had. per Cybertron = why waste time nom'ing 1 fictional planet... you might as well nom them all. I am the loudest deletionist on Wikipedia almost 5 years running with that title En-Wiki has 2.7 million articles and 2 million of them should be deleted as total sh*t. This one isn't one of them. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless the subject can be shown to have significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. The ones presently attached to the article fall short of WP:RS. Edison (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Poorly sourced material than can be fixed or is hopeless? Could it be written out of universe (whatever that is, sorry I don't write much tv stuff, this appears to have been created as my 4,000th edit back in 2005 and hasn't had much work on it since - less than 100 edits) ?--Alf ^melmac 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely say "is hopeless". Three years is plenty of time to fix an article, and usually if no one's fixed in THAT long, either it's slipped through the cracks or is just plain non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slipped through the cracks? - or maybe any readers/editors who came across it (until now) didn't really see a problem with it. Likely they looked it up having liked the humour of the show and saw some of that recorded in the article and perceived no issue with what's there. Having looked at the cites again - the only ones I'd be inclined not to include if I were writing this now , is the pleasant.org (last two), the others seem ok for the nature of the subject of the article.--Alf ^melmac 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even the first two cites are sufficient, and the nom seems to have accepted them. Does need a rewriting. DGG (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be sourced enough now. For awhile in the late 80s and early 90s, this fictional planet was fairly well-known. ALF referred to it in the series of the same name. The author doesn't appear to be aware that there was also an entire cartoon devoted to it in the form of ALF Tales, which took place before the planet was destroyed "in a freak boating accident". Mandsford (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is sourced well enough and did actually exsist in the television world.Smallman12q (talk) 23:38, 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 withdrawn by nom. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Maw (video game)[edit]

Article fails to meet WP:N, also, those of you arguing that there are other xbox live games that have pages, please view WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I shall cross those bridges when I find them. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:N, as outlined above(this is currently under construction as I gather the pages):~~

I am striking the above so that it can still be viewed, as a reasoning for the responses below that referenced them, however, this AFD now only concerns the root article.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four articles I'm actually seeing, keep 1942 and Aces of the Galaxy, and delete the other two. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, poor nomination method. These articles aren't related in any way, so multi-nomming them in one discussion is not appropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The articles are related, they're all Xbox Live Arcade games. Would you suggest I nominate them all under separate AFDs with the same rational?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Though I disagree that they fail to meet WP:N, most of them have sufficient media coverage to satisfy WP:N, and notability is not temporary. At any rate if you insist on nominating them as failing WP:N then notability should be discussed for each individual article, not for all of them at the same time. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well, could you please cite the ones which do not fail WP:N, because, as far as I can see, they all do. A game magazine is not proof of notability. It isn't some great feat to get reviewed by a magazine that reviews games.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't want to add a vote either way yet as I'm not familiar with the numerous rules and regulations, but does having won an award at PAX and being a finalist for the IGF change its notability at all? In its detriment, I've yet to see any significant interviews with the dev team, but it is seemingly early days with having only just been released. Sargant (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is very easily found with a websearch, reviews on EuroGamer, Team Xbox, videogamer.com, Gamespot, Kotaku. It's also in issue 43 of the official UK XBox magazine (half page review on page 90). What exactly is the issue here? Whatever it is, it's not notability. Someone another 17:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least 34,212 have downloaded the game, and thousands of others know of it. It's also notable for being the first original game by Twisted Pixel Games--60.228.44.216 (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - None of those things have anything to do with notability.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the game "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is everything to do with notability, yet you persist. What exactly are you asking for? Someone another 01:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My most recent reply was not to you, but to the IP. Amount of downloads, or amount of users, or players, does not indicate notability. But all that aside, I withdraw this, as when I nominated this article, it had no such sources, and no claim of notability.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:45, 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constance R Howard[edit]

Non-notable "up and coming" performer who has yet to release an album, no reliable sources that I can find. My speedy delete tag was removed, even though I don't really see any claims of notability other than that she is going to release an album Real Soon Now (TM). Note that Prima Donna (album) has already been speedy deleted for lack of notability. Note also that the initial editor of the article also uploaded File:Gliderconstance.jpg, claiming to be the copyright holder, therefore revealing a COI. AnyPerson (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed who this person is and what they do which makes relevance. It was approved through Wikipedia because she is in face an actual artist. She does have an up and coming project that is already being viewed on websites and through the radio circuit. She is signed to a major record label and I've seen a lot of Indie artist on Wikipedia so i believe she deserves this page. I have listed credits and references and the picture that was uploaded is in fact a picture i shot. I believe she deserves this Wikipedia page and so does her fans.

The above was added by User:Xobluediamondxo. AnyPerson (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I never approved it. Wikipedia's A7 has a specific scope. If the article asserts notability, it must go through other means. In this case, notability was asserted, particularly in the "recording career" section. Now, if this is misinformation or a hoax, that would be a different matter. My decline was solely on the grounds that notability was asserted. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I can find zero Google hits for /"constance r howard" "prima donna" -wikipedia/, and nothing at /"constance howard" "prima donna" -wikipedia/ that has anything to do with this person. Apparently not even a MySpace or YouTube page. AnyPerson (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this page, which purports to be Constance Howard's upcoming tour schedule. The first entry is for the "El Ray" Theater in Los Angeles. The El Rey Theater in Los Angeles apparently has no record of her appearing there on January 27: [12]. I can't find a schedule for events at the Monte Cristo club. Nothing about her at [13]. Nothing at [14]. Nothing at [15]. I won't go on. AnyPerson (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an actual artist and she is on actual tour and as for Myspace hits she is known and also has pictures and even shows with such artist as Jay-z and Kanye west. She is a notable artist. She has recently been signed to Def Jam as you can clearly see on the Def Jam site there aren't even new updates for established artist. I don't see what is your issue with this artist she is notable and even artist such as Kanye West have talked about her in previous blogs and website forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.210.222 (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. All you have to do is prove it. AnyPerson (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look in her pictures its all there, the proof. Shes done interviews in the Documentary "Hip Hop Videos: Sexploitation On The Set" and shes seen in numerous Jay-Z and many many more artist page. To delete Constance Wikipedia page would be an outrage. she is a known person especially through modeling and radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.210.222 (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What pictures? Please provide links. AnyPerson (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are some of the pictures on Constance's myspace page that was an "invite only" Def Jam event.

http://i42.tinypic.com/9b9j6p.jpg http://i39.tinypic.com/ip19qb.jpg http://i39.tinypic.com/rljfrn.jpg http://i44.tinypic.com/105tesy.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.210.222 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How do those pictures prove that she's a notable singer? AnyPerson (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome and until Def Jam updates her site the information (which has just been released in her press release).Will be unavailable, She has pictures and videos of her singing on her myspace page and the shows she is performing for is for buzz. I recognize she in not known everywhere and you clearly don't know her but others " many" do. Constance has been performing in singing and music videos for over 10 years.How is it an Indie unsigned artist can get Wikipedia page but your questioning hers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.210.222 (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It all comes down to reliable sources. Without those, we have no proof of the claims of her notability. If you could provide some, that would help tremendously. AnyPerson (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to get that you would have to view the music and videos. shes is a recording artist as you can tell from her songs and copyrights.Please do not delete this Wikipedia page i have given you some of what i can. I'm not the artist myself but i think I've provided enough information her bio is professional and i made sure to list all she has done.I've seen Indie artist Wikipedia pages that don't even have alot of information and NO references or resources and there are STILL up and running. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.210.222 (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out some of those? I'm sorry, but you haven't provided sufficient information, that on top of the apparent hoax touring information, says it all. I won't discuss this further, no point in beating a dead horse. AnyPerson (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--despite the plethora of text here and in the article, I don't see any proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails verifiability. There is simply no information about this artist. And in particular, Defjam has no information about her. -- Whpq (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i will just delete it until she "gets her credit due"..and to the "anyperson" thingy..learn peoples skills.THANKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xobluediamondxo (talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well, just wait for it to be deleted cause it wont by its self...Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xobluediamondxo (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nader bell[edit]

Seems to be an uncommon term. Fails google test. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google book search does not show any instances of "Nader bell" as a name for audible backup signals. Google News archive shows only one reference, presently in the article, calling it the "Nader bell." An article on audible backup signals might be appropriate. They apparently became common in the 1980's to reduce the chance of backing over someone. We do not have encyclopedia articles to mirror every single use of a term in one newspaper. But an article about the term itself, or an article about backup signals with this title is inappropriate. Audible backup signal is probably the correct title for an article about the things, and there is no indication that Nader invented them or that his work led to the requirement for them, but maybe someone can find such a reference to be included in an Audible backup signal article. Also, I have heard many annoying "beeps" but not one single "bell" to indicate something is backing up. Edison (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism; other than one use of the phrase in the cited St. Petersburg Times article, all other ghits seem to be mirrors of Nader bell or Beep_(sound)#Use_in_transport, where the subject of an Audible backup signal can be adequately covered unless/until the section there becomes big enough to be spun off into its own article per WP:Summary Style. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The technical term turns out to be "reverse signal alarm" [16] and the applicable OSHA regulation is 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1926.602(b)(4)(i) [17]. I think a great article could be written about the history of the thing that beeps when a vehicle is backing up. "Nader bell" has to be as dumb a name as I've ever heard made up. Not only do bells not make a beeping sound, the equipment was being used fifty years ago in Corps of Engineers projects [18], several years before Ralph Nader wrote about the Corvair. The OSHA requirement dates from about 1974. Mandsford (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a term that has not really entered common usage -- Whpq (talk) 10:37, 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. Tone 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frontlinetroop[edit]

Non-notable band JaGa^talk 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another MySpace band? There is no way that this meets WP:N. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable band. Matt (Talk) 23:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Center for Academic Excellence[edit]

AfDs for this article:

2nd nomination. There are more tags on this than there is content. The content does not assert or explain notability. I'm not interested in sorting out this article and it seems nobody else is either. Let's clear it away, and if somebody has an interest in creating a decent article in future they can do so without prejudice. SilkTork *^YES! 22:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteRS coverage doesn't establish notability and ghits are trivial. Despite WP:SCHOOLS saying high schools are notable, this isn't a school as much as a private extracurricular program. Disregard the article's current state, that could be fixed if there were materials from which to do so, it doesn't appear that there are. It also fails WP:ORG: Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. StarM 00:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Avalon (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Medeiros[edit]

Notability not Proven
Nothing in Google to associate the name to the awards listed in the article ttonyb1 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aboveTar-Talk
Delete--the advertising equivalent of a MySpace band. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the claim for notability in the ADDY Awards is not supported by sources. He is not listed on this page which shows the 2007 winners. -- Whpq (talk) 10:50, 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 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Polish[edit]

To judge by the talk page, films critical of Scientology have a rough ride. This article deserves a rough ride here but for a different reason - lack of notability. I would also point out a large copyvio from the film's website and suggest that it could be speedied as spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only sources I can find are unreliable, so I don't think it satisfies the notability requirements. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to be noted outside of Scientology internet activists; I have deleted the copyvio material, which also takes care of the spam issue, but there's not much content left. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable movie that hasn't had any appearances in any mainstream press outlets, near as I can tell. --Good Damon 01:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of state terrorism by Israel[edit]

Violation of WP:POVFORK, not enough content to merit a split per WP:SUMMARY. Any salvageable material can be merged to State Terrorism#Israel ~~somewhere, perhaps to Arab-Israeli conflict and/or Foreign relations of Israel~~ (changed per User:Jalapenos do exist). Oren0 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reasons, but content (what there is of it) should best be merged into State Terrorism#Israel. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing seems thin. Agree with Jalapenos do exist about possible merger. Edison (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like WP:SYNTH; you can't just list every allegation of state terrorism by Israel and call it an article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious POVFORK. The article is furthermore an indiscriminate collection of loosely-related information. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malik Shabazz and Ynhockey. -- Nudve (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Jalapenos do exist and Oren0. As the article never got expanded enough, contents should be merged to State Terrorism#Israel Zencv^{Lets discuss} 09:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Allegations" articles are crap and this is one. De-crap! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This will definitely be a test of whether WP is based on a vote count or discussion merit. The above assertions are all erroneous citations of WP guidelines ("Seems like WP:SYNTH"), erroneous statements about WP policy ("you can't just list every..." [X] "...and call it an article" -au contraire) or merely in error("the article never got expanded enough") -the article has been updated in 2009, so it has obviously not been abandoned), or dittoing ("for same reasons", "per Y and Z") All three are present in Malik and Nudve's statements.

The original reason for deletion is vague and not substantiated in any way. This is particularly troublesome as the accusation, POV, is a grave one, and the 'POV' should be distinctly shown to be present, in order that it not be conflated with 'controversial'. WP:POVFORK is only asserted; no facts are given to back that claim. As there is no valid reason given that the article is deficient, the following procedures such as merging are moot.

A fact which shows merit of the article: See Allegations of state terrorism against the United States, Allegations of state terrorism by Iran, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia.

From WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'"

Anarchangel (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment copied from my user talk page: I generally take issue with all of these articles. The problem is that an article about allegations of state terror by any country is very difficult to write in a way that matches up with WP:NPOV and doesn't violate WP:POVFORK because the article is designed to present only one side of the story. In order to be at all viable, these articles need to present both the allegations and the responses of the given nation and/or its supporters. This article made no effort whatsoever to do so, and therefore it seems it was written only to disparage Israel. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the treatment of this subject over at State terrorism either because that suffers from the same problem. Honestly, I'm not sure how this information should be presented but I think the best way may be to get rid of all "allegations of state terror by X" articles and merge these to "foreign relations of X" or similar.

As for "WP:POVFORK is only asserted; no facts are given to back that claim," I didn't think it needed backing up because this page being a POV fork is self-evident. In order to be permissible per WP:NPOV, the article would have to fairly present all sides of the issue with due weight. The issue is that an article about "allegations of" anything is inherently going to lack the response to those allegations, which makes the article practically the definition laid out at WP:POVFORK. Since multiple editors have agreed that this is in fact a POV fork, I'd ask you to explain how it is you don't believe this page fits the definition. Oren0 (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anarchangel. The article is definitely laden with POV-danger, but the similar articles for Pakistan and the U.S. seem to be moving in an acceptable direction. This should be marked as a stub and given a chance. I'd also like to point out that this attempt to expand the article was deleted by Jalapenos do exist - and I don't see what was wrong with the content. --JaGa^talk 05:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained at length on the talk page (as well as in the edit summary) what was wrong with the content. No one has challenged my explanation, including the editor who posted the content. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he did. But your counterargument to his comment makes a good point that I would want to investigate before restoring the content. --JaGa^talk 15:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that nobody challenged my talk page explanation, which, as you correctly note, was a response to his comment. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am against deleting an article only because it promotes for POV, I think there is a better solution, Wikipedia:Article development that is. If anyone thinks that this artilce is promoting for POV then it is ok and expected, no one is perfect and therefor no one can write a perfect article, if u feel that a certain article promotes for POV then don't delete it improve it, and if u feel that this particular article couldn't be imrpoved then this is simply because it doesn't contain a POV. Yamanam (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anarchangel. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Carlos, this is craptastic. Poorly wirtten and referenced, non-notable, POV WP:COATRACK... if not for that, I would love to have voted keep. IronDuke 23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth the fork. JFW | T@lk 23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork, we don't need more attack articles. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is an obvious POV fork. Quoting a personal essay (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) in order to support keeping the article, while in the same breath denouncing "Delete" arguments as not being supported by Wikipedia policy is amusing, but not very convincing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete krof vop.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POVFORK. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. Most of the acts of Israel's gov't are controversial, surely this can be covereed in the article on Israel orIsraily politices.Slrubenstein | Talk 02:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. This non-descript stub is just out to make mischief based on the militantly Islamic rantings of Turkey's PM and Dictator for life Hugo Chavez of all people. This is also a violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX & WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NPOV. IZAK (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IZAK in every respect.—Sandahl (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In this instance the sources making the allegations (as noted by IZAK) are simply not credible. The statements are part of a political discourse not actually allegations. They are also very much an aside to any real discussion or issue. Beyond that though... NONE of the articles listed on State terrorism should exist under those names. The Iranian article should properly be retitled "State-sponsored terrorism" which one point where that article forks from. State Terrorism is NOT a real concept. State sponsored terrorism IS a real concept. The base articles make this clear as do the related examples. This articles needs deletion (unless someone can find evidence of Israeli government sponsored terrorist groups?) and the others need to be renamed to bring them back to Encyclopedic quality. Oboler (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Such matters have been many times debated with regard to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, and the article was kept.Biophys (talk) 22:03, 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. Tone 22:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gorg Per[edit]

Delete non notable fictional character, no GHITS at all, Creator of character also appears to be non notable Mayalld (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably meant Robert E. Howard. As it stands, utter drivel. Likely hoax. Peridon (talk) 21:24, 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 delete. HAMMER... Tone 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay's fifth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Coldplay's fifth studio album

Insufficient information to warrant a separate article. All it says is that Coldplay have worked with Eno and the album may be out before the end of 2009. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Suggest merge to Coldplay. JD554 (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — It probably could have been merged without going to AFD, with the ensuing redirect deleted once Coldplay announces an official title for their next album (and could be split out once for information comes in). Oh, and also note that the first three references say the exact same thing (I have removed the duplicate references here). MuZemike 20:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it could have. However, I felt it would be best to get a consensus. --JD554 (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I think it's clear that they're working on their next studio album and that it is planned to be released at the end of 2009. Isn't that enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidlos (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 January 2009

I don't think so yet. It could simply be one sentence added to the Coldplay article. Re-create the article when there is more information. --JD554 (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete STOP - Hammer Time! flaming lawyer 20:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. The sources confirm that it WILL exist and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm tired of these "there will be an album!" articles. Great. But until they get close to release, everything is going to be rumor. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is tantamount to Coldplay is continuing their career. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: not enough info for a separate article yet. Cliff smith ^talk 08:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout: The Health Impact of 9/11[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. In the few searches that I did, the results where torrent sites, locatetv and other sites like it, a BBC site, and a program guide. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The film has over 200 hits in a google search. Referring cites span from Australia to South Korea. The torrent sites are valid. They indicate that there are many people sharing the film and seeking to see the film.Dogru144 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of that stuff shows notability per WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom fails WP:NF
Delete This isn't notable. J 10987 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable. Again, I return to the fact that there are over 200 hits in Google relating to this page. Again, I note that the attention garnered is in several international websites. The above delete votes are votes, without discussion (except in the case of the initiator of the proposal).Dogru144 (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked imdb, the NYCOSH website, and the ProQuest periodicals database, which didn't even mention this short documentary. Google hits, while easy, are not sole proof of notability (heck, I get 79,000 hits on my own real name and I'm not notable either). Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NO evidence of notability presented (200 googlehits is nothing). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tōru Uchimizu[edit]

Unnotable manga author who fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. He is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his peers or successors" and he is not know for "originating a significant new concept, theory or technique". He has not "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" having written only 3 series which are all, unlicensed for foreign release, and only one of which is even listed in Anime News Network's anime/manga encyclopedia. His work has not been noted in any exhibition, museum, nor "won significant critical attention." He has no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Declined speedy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - three massive failures, all lasting less than a couple of dozen issues. The only interesting thing about him is how someone so spectacularly talentless has been given so many chances. Doceirias (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say that as if Asklepios (manga) has been cancelled. Has it? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be, in the next couple of weeks; been dead last in the chapter listings for a couple of months now. Doceirias (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- hadn't seen that. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the ja.wiki article, he won some sort of newcomer's award for his debut short story. Looking around for more ... —Quasirandom (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One award alone wouldn't be enough for Creative though...I suspect that's one of the Shueisha's annual things to find new artists (I forget the exact name) which got him the contract to work there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those awards are also handed out like candy several times a year, and most of the artists who receive them are never heard from again. Doceirias (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like it's one of those, yeah -- the sort to be mentioned in the potted career of a notable mangaka, but does not demonstrate notability on its own. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can't have such an influential and popular magazine(just look at how many mega hit series they've published there), publish one series of yours after another, unless they were notable. Dream Focus (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you can. Again you are attempting to use the "well, he's in WSJ" argument, which is invalid. The notability of the magazine does not mean everything that appears in it is also notable, nor that every author that fills its many pages is notable either. Shuisha regularly publishes a mix of works from established notable authors, and not so notable ones, including the winners of their random contests because it is part of their contracts with those people. That he has written three series and not a single one has received any significant coverage (or really, any coverage at all) shows they are not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that being published in WSJ means one's notable is equivalent to saying that being published by, say, Random House makes one notable -- it's not the publisher that matters, it's whether the series or book survives and doesn't go out of print in a couple months (as far too many novels do). —Quasirandom (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Author of a handful of one-shots and two (soon to be three) quickly canceled series. I'm not finding any more info on him, and without it, fails WP:CREATIVE. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to http://anime-wiki.org 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 09:58, 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 22:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulothanatophobia[edit]

Nonnotable neologism for ~~gear~~ fear of zombies. Not a single ref to serious sources - 7-bubёn >t 19:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — and I thought this was an article about zombies having gears (made correction). Anyways, I cannot find any reliable about this neologism after doing a quick Google search here; the references are nonreliable or otherwise primary sources. I should also note on the side that it does not bode well when the first Google hit is an Urban Dictionary entry. MuZemike 20:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Google News, books or Scholar hits. WP:MADEUP. -Atmoz (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on scirus or PubMed, either. The article states that it is an essentially made up word, but searching for "Zombie phobia" turns up nothing notable, either, rendering even the basis of the article dubious. (Which isn't to say that it never happens, just that there is no apparent basis for the claims made about it in the article). Anaxial (talk) 19:58, 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 redirect to Gaswan Zerikly - 7-bubёn >t 19:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

غزوان الزركلي[edit]

Non-notable individual (see the Google translation) JaGa^talk 18:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted; BLP violation. Tan | 39 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you arnold palmer[edit]

Complete rubbish/neodrink bollocks. 40 hits on google for "Fuck you Arnold Palmer" - 16 of which are unique (some have 2 hits) Drinknation.com (user submitted recipe site) - no good. This article. Neweasyrecipe.com - another user submitted recipe site - no good. A blog, a message board, a digg style site and a bartender aggregator site (that is taking the info from drinknation) - all rubbish. derais.pl - another user submitted recipe site - no good. 2 more blogs and 2 myspace hits - rubbish again. That's it. Speedy deletion blocked by process wonks so here we go... DELETE, SALT and generally TWEP! Exxolon (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability after reasonable efforts to find sources. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 18:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no sources to meet GNG. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2006 World Indoor Soccer Cup[edit]

I can't verify any of this information. The closest I've found is this, but the teams etc are all wrong. And if I google "Boston Saints soccer" or "Boston Saints football" I get nothing but some youth league stuff. JaGa^talk 17:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranje^Talk 08:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It just seems to need some refs, thats all. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems that it does need some refs. The article creator made no other contributions. The article doesn't say where or when this was supposed to have taken place. I've found no news items for the cup or the "Boston Saints" or the "Toronto Wizards". And wouldn't the rest of the world call this indoor "football"? Congrats to the author on what looks like a hoax that lasted almost two years. Mandsford (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to exist, unless it is so staggeringly obscure that nobody thought to document it anywhere on the internet (kinda unlikely for a "world tournament"). None of the redlinked teams seem to exist, and "Krakow Semvzsaeasx" is an especially unbelievable name for a Polish team -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoax. All web searches that include any 3 of teams mentioned only return wiki scrapes. Seems unlikely that a recent notable event would not be listed somewhere.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a complete hoax. - fchd (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be self-promotion of an on-line gamer’s claim of grandeurEsasus (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:V. Smile a While (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of this is highly dubious. Google searching for any of these teams brings up next to nothing, as does searching for anything about the cup itself. At the very least, this fails WP:V. Bettia (rawr!) 15:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vlei[edit]

A subjective essay with no sources. Most of the article seems to be someone's way of venting their opinions on common misuse of the word. According to the article the word doesn't even seem to be English. Do we really need articles in English Wikipedia to define words in other languages? Very little information on what it actually is anyway, as the article seems to be focused on what it is not.Equazcion •✗/C • 17:18, 25 Jan 2009 (UTC)

Delete should be on wikitonary, but not as it stands. --Empire3131 (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki over to Wiktionary. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition--and completely devoid of encyclopedic qualities such as sources. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beefart says: Maybe read the observations on my page and then go well on your merry way... I never had a problem with seeing pigs puzzled by pearls...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeefart (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 January 2009
- It's more like offering mac & cheese to a porcupine. You might like it and think it's great, but it just isn't what that particular animal is looking for. You must understand that Wikipedia has specific standards and requirements for its articles. That doesn't mean your article is "bad" in a general sense -- just that it's not right for Wikipedia. If you're interested in constructive criticism, encyclopedia articles should predominately contain information about the word as a topic, rather than merely listing common misuses and etymology of the word. As others have stated, parts of your article would work better over at Wiktionary, whose goal is dictionary definitions rather than encyclopedia entries. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:05, 26 Jan 2009 (UTC)
Delete Just seems to be a definition of a word (and not an English one, at that). I'd suggest moving it to Wiktionary, but it's already there - although that article could certainly do with some expanding, which I'm sure Captainbeefart would be well-placed to provide. Anaxial (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Honor[edit]

Unnotable Self-published book. Direct copy of Amazon page on the book. Also the same person made a page for the author that was deletedEmpire3131 (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam -- Whpq (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly spam Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 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 Keep. Synergy 01:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Chung[edit]

Fails to assert notability and lacks sources. A google search [19] returns only 736 likely matches. KaySL (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For an 80-year old professor of Chinese Studies who has spent his working life in India I would have thought that 736 Google hits is a pretty good return, but, anyway, it's the quality of those hits that counts, not the quantity. This article from The Hindu (already cited in our article) certainly provides substantial coverage, and this article from The Times of India is devoted to his proposals for solving Sino-Indian border disputes. They were the two most obvious examples that came up in a Google News archive search, but many more of those hits seem to be about this Tan Chung. Google Scholar is pretty useless for this due to the subject's having too many namesakes, but a Google Books search comes up with quite a few hits that obviously, from the snippets displayed, relate to this Tan Chung. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are hard to find, but, as noted by Phil Bridger seems to meet WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one specialized book, China and the brave new world, currently in more than 250 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:13, 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 keep. Deletion is not an issue here since the topic is valid. One may consider a merge but AfD is not a place to discuss this. Tone 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School punishment[edit]

Very unencyclopaeic. Should be merged into School#Discipline. jftsang 16:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up Whilst the current article is unsourced, i can see the potential for a good article to develop, the subject would seem too long to be simply merged. --neon white talk 17:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep because the nominator cites no valid reasons for deletion. Nominator says "unencyclopaedic" without explaining why (cf: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC) and "should be merged" without explaining why. I also agree with Neon white.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Unencyclopedic content can be fixed. Also, not the proper forum for a merge discussion, which belong on the articles' talk pages. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the nominator means that it's unencylopedic in that it has no sources... not surprising, considering when it was written. At least nobody mentioned Bart Simpson writing lines. We do have a category on individual punishments, and I'm not one to make the idiotic argument of "wouldn't-it-be-better-to-read-each-of-those-articles-instead" when it comes to grouping items into one place. Sometimes, someone from the "let's-fix-it" crew is willing to make some fixes, and if it appears that it's getting some attention, it should be kept. Mandsford (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article appears to be the only mention about a number of forms of school punishment including detention, writing lines, which are surely to some degree encyclopedic topics. Whilst they are currently unreferenced this must surely be fixable. There is, however, probably a case for a merger of some sort with school discipline. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any salvageable material to school discipline, which is the summary style split-out article from school, then delete unless someone thinks "school punishment" is a useful redirect. Article must not be kept because it is a content fork of school discipline. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry but your recommendation cannot be actioned. If any material is merged then the page cannot be deleted for GFDL compliance. TerriersFan (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep School discipline is a high quality article, but at a different level of abstraction. This article is appropriate also, and just needs fixing. If an article can be fixed, it should be kept, whether or not anyone is actually about to do so. (In this case, I agree with Mandsford that it looks like it will be worked on.) DGG (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Six of the best for failure to observe school rules. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Notable subject with oodles of sources available. -- Banjeboi 10:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Banjeboi jbolden1517 ^Talk 18:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly referenced, mostly synthesis, anecdotes, an OR--all material that's against policy. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources to meet policy. Actually, I should like to see it merged into School discipline of which this is a sub-set but that is for post AfD discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I agree with Terriers. This was not the proper approach. Instead you should suggest a merge. See WP:MERGE. Smallman12q (talk) 22:39, 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 Speedily deleted as vandalism by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs).Was originally closed by Capricorn42, but I re-closed it since Capri used the wrong template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinism[edit]

I can't find any evidence of this new "religion" via ghits. WP:MADEUP/WP:HOAX/bored at school. Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Madeup. No sources, at least not on Google. –Capricorn42 (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I've also tagged it for speedy deletion. andy (talk) 16:55, 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 00:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adriel T. Desautels[edit]

Non-notable individual. JaGa^talk 19:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, no references for notability found on search engine or article. RT | Talk 15:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perfectly worthy individual working in IT, but I can find no third-party coverage (ie. news, books) suggesting any particular personal notability. The SNOsoft / HP / Tru64 saga [20][21] is notable, but that really belongs at Tru64 UNIX. If the result isn't delete, it needs taking to WP:COIN as it's almost certainly self-created (Google "greybrimstone") and User:GreyBrimstone's relationship to the article has been considerably non-neutral. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmine Nigro[edit]

Has a couple of human-interest obituaries from reliable sources after he died because of the happenstance that he was Bobby Fischer's chess coach by virtue of the happenstance of being president of the chess club where Fischer first started playing, but wasn't independently notable otherwise, and notability does not transfer. WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BIO. Tagged since 9/2007 without improvement. THF (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Bobby Fischer.
WP:PRESERVE Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to... no active effort was made to improve this article before deletion.
Wikipedia:Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." no active effort was made to find sources before nomination.
WP:INTROTODELETE "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article" Just because an article was tagged since 9/2007, deletion should not be used as a way to improve the article.
WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BIO are actually the same page, a guideline fork of Wikipedia:Notability mentioned above. Parent article Wikipedia:Notability was not followed.
Articles exceeds notability guidelines because of the article in the New York Times and the 407 pages on google news.[22] Again, "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." this was clearly not done. Ikip (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, noone disputes the existence of reliable sources. Reliable sources do not equal notability. There's nothing to expand: Bobby Fischer nicely called him a good chess teacher, and that's the only thing that's ever merited press. THF (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A NYT obit is generally considered an unambiguous indication of notability. Jfire (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 407 gnews hits , with obits in the NYT, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Miami Herald at the top? The existence of such sources are what defines wiki-notability. Essentially, reliable sources do equal notability - the usual abbreviation is 2RS=N. Notability not transferring means that we shouldn't be doing the "transferring" (If one wants to call this notability by inheritance or transference.) If tons of RS's do, as here, we just emulate their transference. John Z (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the obit in the NY Times. We quite correctly consider this a proof of notability, on the basis of their selectivity. They are the experts at this, and much better judges of such things than we are, though their level is much higher than ours even for the fields of human life they take account of. The other information would be sufficient without it. though. All this should have been found by the nominator. But FWIW, 2RS is, by our present rules, not proof of notability, only presumptive indication of it. DGG (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw to permit the WP:SNOW closure, though I don't agree as a prescriptive matter that New York Times obituaries equal notability. If Bobby Fischer lived in the Bronx instead of Brooklyn, the Times wouldn't be covering his death. THF (talk) 23:56, 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 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Might and Magic IV: Winds of War[edit]

Non-notable, in poor shape, has few sources, full of fancruft and a useless list, redirected once before. To my knowledge a merge with Heroes of Might and Magic IV was already agreed and carried through, but the page was restored. Monere (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup — what happened was that the merge was completed back in June here but was reverted four days later here (note to editors to keep merged redirects watchlisted for a while to watch for reversions), which brought back the merge tag. However, at a minimum, there is coverage in GameSpot here and IGN here as well as GameZone here—more than enough significant coverage via reliable secondary sources to establish notability. MuZemike 03:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per significant coverage. SharkD (talk) 19:33, 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 Speedy keep. Synergy 01:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical postevolution[edit]

~~Delete:~~Merge to Total synthesis: obscure protoneologism. All sources cited are in primary literature. No indication of widespread use in secondary sources (no GoogleBooks hits, only 6 GoogleScholar hits). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to merge (per comment below). It seems that this obscure protoneologism is merely a synonym for the more widely used term total synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[First of all, a comment for the user Hrafn: it is worldwide accepted academic style to let the other opinion speak out and not to try to "win" by just deleting the statement of others.]

Comment: it is the convention on AfDs to value brevity, clarity and basis in policy -- your personal missive addressed to me exhibited none of these traits, so was moved to talk. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term chemical postevolution is not a neologism. It is an important scientific term in a special but widespread technical setting:

How to improve natural products (the most important source of antibacterial- and anticancer drugs).

That this term is not found in google books can easily be understood when looking at the references, very new review articles from peer reviewed internationally renowned journals (Angewandte Chemie International Edition). The term "chemical postevolution" was even on the cover of one issue (Angew. Chem. 2006, August issue).

This was not in primary literature, as stated by Hrafn, but in REVIEW articles. Chemical postevolution, it is a special way to look upon chemical drug optimization. When seeing how nature has optimized its natural products (secondary metabolites like taxol [a mulitbillion dollar cancer drug] or daptomycin [a hundred million antiinfective drug] one can also understand where are the limits of natural structural optimization. When seeing these limitations, white spots in natures space become obvious, these are the most promising areas for chemists in drug discovery to go into.

For these reasons I would like to renominate the article on the important term chemical postevolution. Best regards, Paxillus (Paxillus (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

For example, chemical postevolution is mentioned and discussed in the following REVIEW article (not primary literatur) Angew. Chem. 2006, 118, 5194–5254; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 5072–5129. Antibacterial Natural Products in Medicinal Chemistry—Exodus or Revival? PMID 16881035 Paxillus (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, 8 entries in Google Scholar all referring to peer reviewed internationally renowned scientific journals (ChemMedChem, ChemBioChem, Angewandte Chemie Int. Edition): http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=de&q=%22Chemical+post+evolution%22&spell=1 and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_epq=Chemical+postevolution (Paxillus (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. While this is relatively new, it is important and is sourced to review articles. Something that gets a cover on Angewandte Chemie is certainly notable. I have taken the liberty of reformating Paxillus' comments above to the normal format for AfD. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: does the AC cover mention 'chemical postevolution' or merely the article (which may emphasise the term total synthesis more than c.pe. -- see comment below)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second question: are the cited AC articles mainly on the topic of "chemical postevolution" (as the term is defined in Chemical postevolution) or on Total synthesis (as their abstracts suggest)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I think a full article on this topic is premature at this time. The topic is very interesting though, and should probably be discussed briefly elsewhere. I don't think there is an intrinsic problem with naming an article by a relatively new scientific term. The problem is that a dozen or so scientific articles on the concept discussed in the article, apparently all from the same group of researchers(?), is not enough to warrant a full article, see WP:NOTABILITY. A longish section in a related article could serve the same purpose, however.

To be clear: There seems to be nothing wrong with the content of the article, and I don't think Hrafn or Silly rabbit wanted to insinuate that. This is just a matter of Wikipedia favouring long comprehensive articles rather than fragmentation, and of Wikipedia not trying to cover important topics faster than the scientific community picks them up. My opinion is based mainly (on policies and) on the way we routinely deal with technical topics in mathematics.

(Added after edit conflict with Bduke) Bduke's arguments sound convincing to me, and keeping the article is certainly an acceptable outcome for me. Losing the content would not be acceptable. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC) (edited 00:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Question: what article would you be proposing merging it into, if that idea went ahead? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, probably drug discovery or one of the articles linked from there. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Personally, I think this is a relatively foolish term for "laboratory modification of natural products" but it does seem to have enough acceptance. DGG (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: one of the cited Angewandte Chemie article's abstract lists 'Chemical postevolution' as a mere synonym of 'total synthesis' ("total synthesis (chemical postevolution)") and lists the latter as one of the article's 'keywords'. The other cited A.C. article abstract mentions total synthesis but not chemical postevolution. It would therefore seem reasonable to merge this article into Total synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A rarely used expression, but it can be found in a few scientific articles.Biophys (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Chemical postevolution is not the same as total synthesis, it is a special way to improve natural products (Concept). Total synthesis, de novo synthesis and semisynthesis are all methods to follow this concept.

Answer: The article in Review Article in Angew. Chem. discusses Chemical Postevolution.

Chemical postevolution was also discussed in plenary lectures of top conferences such as the ICAAC or the Gordon Conference on Antiinfectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.228.99 (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia as opposed to a dictionary, it makes perfect sense to discuss several related words with distinct meanings in a single article. As the term "chemical postevolution" seems to be relatively new and not yet widely used (has it been used by researchers outside a small group that came up with it?), it's probably best to discuss it in the context of another, related article. It's not optimal, but acceptable, if that article is primarily about a more special topic, and in that case it's likely the article will be renamed once the more general term becomes more widespread. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Chemical postevolution - great term in Darwin's year! Since Chemical postevolution has nothing to do with the term total synthesis, I suggest to use a discrete article.

(SpookyB (talk) 16:05, 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 Speedied A7 with a dash of salt. Non admin close. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Baker[edit]

Not a notable person. Achievements not notable. Links to three YouTube videos does not meet criteria for references.

Not an important person as rated by peers. Has not created a significant new concept, theory or technique. Does not meet qualifications for creative professionals significance. Mathewferguson (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd, 'n' Eddy's Big Picture Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd, 'n' Eddy's Big Picture Show

WP:CRYSTAL, might even be a HOAX. flaming lawyer 03:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not a hoax -- you can illegally download it for free on the internet, even though nobody seems to be quite sure of when it will come out on TV (or even what the proper name of the movie is!). Meets WP:NFF because production is finished. And I'd say an Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy movie qualifies as inherently notable. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't meet WP:NFF. The second paragraph of it says that it still needs significant coverage in reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFF. It still needs significant coverage in reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a hoax, but not geting any coverage outside lots o blogs. Perhaps might be suitable if it ever get mainstream coverage. WP:USERFY back to author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it hasn't aired and Cartoon Network doesn't have PR on it yet, it doesn't need the usual poorly written speculative article here. Nate • (chatter) 20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:44, 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 Merge. to Terms of endearment. I read all three debates closely, it's a clear-cut merge case for all three. The lack of sources is an issue the article has that isn't fully met. Remove all of them without sources, and you don't really have enough content for a spin-off article. The keeps were mainly, was because of a WP:NOTAGAIN, but thats not policy as someone could renominate an article if it doesn't fall within our guidelines, and it was in DRV with a comment of "no prejustice to another AFD", so these arguements are moot. The best opision here is to merge the sourced terms to the parent article, and if that becomes way too long with reliable, sourceable entries, then it could be split-off. Thanks Secret ^account 20:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms of endearment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I had AfD'd this article before; it was closed as no consensus; I took it to DRV where no consensus was found to overturn. (I disagree with both closures.) The DRV was closed without prejudice to another immediate AfD, so here we are. The core reason for deletion still stands from the last AfD. The list is indiscriminate; anything that is used as a term of endearment can be put here, and routinely are. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Last AFD closed one week ago. The "no consensus" result looks reasonable to me, as there were good arguments in all directions and nobody seemed to agree with anybody else. Let's keep it for now, and give it time for consensus to emerge, and perhaps for one of the "merge" or "fix" !voters in the last AFD to do something about it. JulesH (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not DRV round 2, so there is no point in evaluating the last AFD. Maybe consensus will emerge here or maybe not, but your comment is not helpful to this AFD reaching consensus. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another indiscriminate list. This list violates WP:SALAT as the topic is too broad for a list article. Anything anybody has said as a term of endearment can fit in this list and who are we to judge what stays in and what gets left out when the topic is so broad? Themfromspace (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Please read WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. I realise you don't like the decision to retain this article, but I think you need to accept it with good grace.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no decision to retain the article. As you know, no consensus defaults to keep. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, then let's say the "outcome not to delete" the article. It's still an outcome of an AfD process. Immediately renominating for deletion is the exact counterpart of immediately recreating a deleted article--there are good reasons why it should be disfavoured.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and just unbelievable at some stages: "Newfoundland"? Seriously? You're kidding me. This isn't going to be any use anywhere, so kill it from orbit. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive renomination per our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I do see where it says that, but I don't know who wrote it there, and I don't really agree with it. When an AFD closes as no consensus, especially when many people thought it should have been closed as delete, another AFD seems appropriate. Also note the comment by the admin who closed the DRV. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Whether any given foo on the list is actually a term of endearment can only be determined in one of two ways: (1) original lexicographic research (e.g. "foo must be a term of endearment because look how it's used in this book") or (2) using a dictionary as a source. Such material is not suited for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But it is welcome over at Wiktionary. Michig at the last AFD even pointed to just the right place for this list: [23]. Indeed, Wikipedia's readers are already pointed to [24] at the top of the page Term of endearment. And did I mention that Wikipedia is not a dictionary? The page under discussion should be hidden from view using the "delete" tool. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Dear!!! Yes, it's a dumb article, and I would definitely say delete, but it's only been two weeks since the last discussion; I doubt that this will go today, though it will eventually go. Of course, it's possible that someone might try to do a serious article about terms of endearment, with quotations from those things that have words printed on paper, what's the word, "books" and quoting from authors like Shakespeare. I seriously doubt it. Based on protocol, I figure we'll have to put up with it for awhile longer. Mandsford (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Not Again! This is not an exemplary article but it can be improve if someone takes the challenge. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any such list that omits chuck—which has the authority of both Macbeth and Wallace—doesn't deserve to live. Oh, and it's also indiscriminate, unmaintainably broad, and essentially a collection of mostly unsourceable reverse dicdefs (and therefore not an encyclopedic topic). Fails WP:SALAT, WP:OR, and other guidelines. The closing admin at DRV specifically left the door open for an immediate renomination, so I see nothing wrong with this AfD. Deor (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I fail to see the encyclopedic value of the article, consensus on two previous nominations has ended in it being retained. In addition, the nom's decision to re-AFD was somewhat inappropriate. KaySL (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some sources just now. On a side note, the book The Lover's Tongue: A Merry Romp Through the Language of Love and Sex has lots of good material that could be used to expand the article Term of endearment. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all unsourced entries unless they're blindingly obvious. (The blindingly obvious ones need to be sourced eventually too, but they don't need to be removed immediately.) I needed only to glance at the "A"s to see some nonsense: (1) "Acct (German)" - as a fluent non-native speaker of German I am quite certain no such word exists; (2) "Amadan" - as a non-fluent non-native speaker of Irish I am quite certain that this word, which means "fool", is not a term of endearment. But AFD isn't cleanup, and cleanup is all this list needs. —An gr 21:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve beyond the bare list. There is an overlap between the functions of an encyclopedia and a dictionary, and this is in that region. (the terms themselves need only be sourced to some standard printed dictionary) . This is a change from my previous opinion, on the basis of the various arguments. DGG (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a viable spinout of Terms of endearment but trim to BlueLinks if u feel you must. I think it fits, and most exemplifies, the Cat. Besides, shoving it through AFD again and again seems to be getting it more references. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - aside from the problem with the repeated nominations, the nom's reason for deletion is that the list is indiscriminate. I do not agree; I think criteria for inclusion in this list can be determined and enforced. I have added some suggestions to that end on the talk page. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 05:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. AfD is not clean-up, really, sources are certainly available to source items as considered a term of endearment, if the list is somehow too broad or something then work to improve it through wording of the wp:lede and by example of adding sourcing. AfD is not a Magic 8-ball to shake until "it is certain" appears. -- Banjeboi 10:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. this ia not a definition but a list. and I do see some encyclopedic value of the artice,. Warrington (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just removed every unsourced entry from the list and we've got no more than a dozen; better as merged into term of endearment. And yes, I know there are some false positives (for example, "angel") Sceptre ^(talk) 13:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With this edit you removed more than half of the article. You can NOT source something which is not there any more. Warrington (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please see the talk page for my comments about removing unsourced entries (my suggestions on how to go about it) and sourcing all entries (needs to be done). Thanks! LinguistAtLarge • Msg 15:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article shouldn't be relisted a week after an AFD ends. The clean up has happened now regardless jbolden1517 ^Talk 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a mess, mostly lacking in sources: if anyone anytime notably or not uses a term as a term of endearment it gets in the list, it's endless and without purpose. List of terms of disparagement next? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as article already closed as keep in January 2008 (I guess January is the month to nominate this article...), i.e. this is a case of keep trying until its deleted. The subject is undoubtedly notable, i.e. they even made a movie called Terms of Endearment. And the list is discriminate, i.e. it concerns only terms of endearment and per our policies on verifiability only terms of endearment listed in reliable sources. The article serves a navigational purpose by being a table of contents or gateway to our articles on the items listed in this list and helps to illustrate examples of terms of endearment. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who can forget the rousing scene where they listed random synonyms in that...er...drama about the difficulties between a mother and daughter. Isn't this a bit of a Chewbacca argument? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See pages 23 through 24, for example, of this book, i.e. the subject of "terms of endearment is discussed in a variety of way and including in published list form from which we can reference this encyclopedic article. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this prompts bringing up a movie that has nothing to do with this list because? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's undeniably relevant to the larger scheme of things. Cheers! --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, does that drama about the difficult relationship between a mother and daughter have anything to do with a list of words? Other than having vaguely related names? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It shows that the subject is one people are interested in and that the concept is such that it has even become the title of a notable film. Thus, listing actual terms of endearments as verified in published books is a worthy inclusion for our project. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man. That's a list of names for your cat or dog. Are you really sure that's relevant here? You might be better off with List of pet names (I hope that's a red link).- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of terms of endearments, which is the scope of this article. Terms of endearments can apply to pets as well as humans. The article is not titled list of terms of endearments (people only). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of names which are based on endearments. There is a difference between the two. Note that these are all proper names. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thus it is a discriminate list. Take care! --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're so concerned about protecting this article that you're not even carefully reading what you're adding. This source sucks, and it harms the article with its irrelevance. Please don't do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a good source as it's a published book with an actual list of terms of endearment and yes they can apply to people as well as animals, but in any event, the article is at worst mergeable to Terms_of_endearment#Examples. Have a nice nighT! --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a list of pet names, it's a list of proper names. It's a published book of suggested proper names for your pet. Implicit in "independent, reliable source" is "relevant," and adding irrelevant nonsense to protect an article that doesn't really need protecting this way (nobody's arguing about notability, just WP:NOT#DICTDEF) is harmful to the project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harmful to the project is renominating an article for deletion three times after it was kept twice already, especially when it's an article that gets thousands of page views and thus, as also exemplified by the numerous keeps above and good faith edits to the article is considered worthwhile by a good chunk of our community. As DGG said the other day quoting Samuel Johnson, "All knowledge is itself of some value. There is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would rather know it than not." This article is worth keeping per Wikipedia:PRESERVE#Preserve_information, as it is not original research (verified through reliable published sources), not redundant (the main terms of endearment articles links to here as a spinoff or subarticle), it's not irrelevant (encylopedias and almanacs typically provide lists of examples of a topic and it serves a navigational function), it is not patent nonsense (only citable references should be included), not copywright violations (again, cited by multiple sources, not copy and pasted from one source), not inaccurate (because verifiable by multiple sourcing), and obviously not unsourced claims about real people. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not wrong because the people I disagree with are wrong." *sigh* Whatever. Just please, if you're trying to preserve this article, kindly don't shit on it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Baker, Nicholson How I fell in love with Wikipedia, The Guardian, April 10 2008:
Wikipedia was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was called a groundsman. Some brought very fancy professional metal rakes...and some were just kids...stuffing handfuls in the pockets of their sweatshirts, but all the leaves they brought to the pile were appreciated...And the pile grew and everyone jumped up and down in it, having a wonderful time. And it grew some more, and it became the biggest leaf pile anyone had ever seen, a world wonder...And then self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared, doubters and deprecators who would look askance at your proffered handful and shake their heads, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side.
Like the vast majority of Articles for deletion, the policy WP:PRESERVE was not followed: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information"; WP:INTROTODELETE: "Remember that deletion is a last resort." Nominator made zero attempts to improve the article before attacking the article for a third time in this Article for Deletion. WP:PRESERVE was put in place to assure that editors contribute to wikipedia, making the project as a whole stronger. Ikip (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the article has continued to be improved since the "Keep" of the 1st AfD and the "no consensus" of the 2nd AfD. I feel that the improvements to the article in keeping with guideline and policy merit a definite keep. That aside, and in considering the very recent 2nd AfD, it is cogent to quote WP:NOTAGAIN: "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion.. Consider the value (or lack of same) of the arguments instead of quibbling about procedure. The latter doesn't really serve any purpose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List_of_individuals_executed_in_Alabama . MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Harvey Callahan[edit]

Delete. Fails notability requirement, his notoriety as a murderer is just WP:ONEEVENT WWGB (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_individuals_executed_in_Alabama as James Harvey Callahan is a useful search term. Subject is not in any way notable beyond the facts of the event for which he was executed, a case which does not have its own article; as such, fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event (not WP:ONEEVENT, though, because that's a subset of BLP, which only applies to living people). Baileypalblue (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory of murders or of executions, neither is wp a WP:MEMORIAL. This case does not appear to be at all different to a vast many other tragedies. I don't have any problem with the page being used as a redirect per Baileypalblue. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As almost the only country with a Western-based judicial system that actually executes people, the remaining executions in the US are highly exceptional from a world perspective, and each of the people killed this way is notable. DGG (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn crook. No objection to the redirect proposed by Baileypalblue. I take exception to the reasoning of DGG, as that would make all people notable who have an exceptional end to their lives or exceptional punishments (perhaps all beheadings, all exiles, all thieves with their hands cut off, not to mention all victims of the Holocaust, plane crashes, or various exceptional events). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I am sympathetic to DGG's view that the simple fact of being executed in the United States could make someone inherently notable. In this case, the man does seem to pass WP:BIO, as he was the subject of coverage from multiple independent sources; that that coverage was all about his death shouldn't rule it out, as it's his death that's notable about him. On the other hand, there are concerns with WP:NOT#NEWS here, and so given the transience of the coverage a merge/redirect may be more appropriate. As it is though, I think there's (just about) enough here to pass our requirements. Terraxos (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jspx[edit]

Very recent software project being promoted by one of its developers. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The JavaLobby interview provides some degree of notability, but it's just one source and I can't seem to find anything else. Search for sources is complicated by the fact that "jspx" is also the file extension used for JSP pages with XHTML content, so many search results are about that instead. JulesH (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Per nom, looks like a promotion more than an actual article. RT | Talk 15:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For awhile at least. Though it has a short history and as a result not much reference and notability, the article could provide useful info for users searching on this topic. For the most part, it is written in an appropriate tone and can be readily expanded on if the topic gains notability over time. Sleepy2222 (talk) 08:50, 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. Good work on the article, it now establishes notability with several RS. TheAE talk/sign 18:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dee's Drive-In[edit]

No notability established, very few Google Hits, no sources, doesn't appear to be notable beyond a small restaurant [chain]. TheAE talk/sign 06:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, bearing in mind that notability does not expire; this was apparently a substantial restaurant chain and Utah landmark in the 1960's, and if it was notable then, it's considered notable forever. I will be adding some sources to establish notability. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added some sources and expanded the article a little. The restaurant chain seemed to be very notable and successful at its height and an important part of Utah's history. It was also the first fast food restaurant in South Africa. It is not surprising that Google does not return many hits for a company that closed in the 1980s, but notability isn't judged on Google hits alone. Somno (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The recent information and references added to the arrticle, plus the comments listed above should be enough to remove the 'article for deletion' tag. If others agree then what is the next step? This is a new thing for me.Rockford1963 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 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, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Betty Season 4[edit]

Article is speculation on next year's season of a show, including "which cast member is leaving." Suggest we delete - I'm not sure the speculation content deserves a place in the main Ugly Betty article. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content is incredibly speculative. I say we should merge and redirect for now into the main Ugly Betty article until the season has some actual encyclopedic content to enter. If the consensus is not to merge, at least redirect for now. SMSpivey (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Watch with Kristin, plain and simple. And no official renewal announcement has not come from ABC yet. Nate • (chatter) 09:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Wait - I would treat this like film treats future films. Right now it is not only crstyal balling (i.e. just because they renew the show doesn't mean that it will get made, anything can happen between now and next fall), but the page appears to be plagarized from another source (which is a big no-no in itself). I say wait until you can start to develop an official season page (with correct title), which means wait until there are reliable sources discussing the new season. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or merge with Ugly Betty, so that when this article meets wikipedia's strict guidelines, then other editors won't have to recreate the wheel. Ikip (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 03:55, 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 00:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SharkTorrent[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not turning anything up either. JulesH (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing turns up on a search engine except download links - nothing to establish notability. RT | Talk 15:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is on Google code, and that is not the case for a lot of minor open source stuff. Ace of Risk (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of birthday songs[edit]

A whole bunch of copyright violations. Or at least, potential copyright violations. AnyPerson (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeh... Not only is it just a bunch of copyright violations on one page, but it's also in 100% not-English. No one on the English Wikipedia would be looking for this. flaming lawyer 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because aside from the copyright issues, Wikipedia is not a directory or a lyrics database. Somno (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. The main body of the article is COPYVIO plus LYRICS plus WP:NOTENGLISH; the final section is a content fork of Happy Birthday (disambiguation). Baileypalblue (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Talk about a mess. Completely aside from the copyright issues, why ever would we want a page that's largely useless to all its readers? Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blow out the candles on this one. Interesting, but totally unsourced-- written in 2006, when stuff like that wasn't considered important. The topic of birthday celebrations and the culture of acknowledging milestones is encyclopedic, to be sure, and a well-written article, with links to other sites, would be most welcome. However, we can't just take someone's word for it that kids in Iran are serenaded with "Tavallod, Tavallod, Tavallodet Mobarak". Mandsford (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete and then recreate as redirect to Happy Birthday to You as a plausible search term, after deletion due to potential copyright problems. If readers want translations, they can check out the inter-wiki links. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Gens du pays and Las Mananitas are not versions of Happy Birthday, and it has a list of "non-Canonical" songs at the bottom. If this is a copyright violoation I guess that means "delete and recreate". Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There needs to be sources for every one of them--and if they are indeed traditional songs, or widespread modern songs, they should each have an individual article. Any of them published before 1924 is PD, so there probably isn't massive copyvio, but we'd need to see the sources. DGG (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyright violations, trivial and just useless listcruft. Also: Wikipedia isn't a directory for this type of information. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE, copyright violations. JamesBurns (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim down to a list of song titles; then improve with sourcing. Any lyrics that are in the public domain should be in an article about the song, as it ought to be easy to prove the notability of the traditional birthday song of any country. DHowell (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article has been rewritten. I've now edited this down to a pure list and started adding references. Please reconsider based on the current state of the article. It should no longer be a copyright violation nor a lyrics database. DHowell (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it a guidebook. Wikipedia covers things from an encyclopedic perspective, compiling how things have been analyzed and recieved in the world. This list of birthday songs by its very nature of the subject matter cannot be an article as there is nothing to put in the article about the list, the only thing one can do is just write the list. Themfromspace (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, people who want to know about other birthday songs can look in the respective articles. Benefix (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a different article than what was nominated, with the most important change being that it is now sourced. People who want to know about other birthday songs can start by looking at a list that cites to verifiable sources, and can click on any blue links to find the respective articles. Not everyone wants to pick through the category haystack to learn more, nor is there any reason why it must be a choice between one or another. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 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 withdrawn. flaming lawyer 05:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel Hummingbirds[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, has only one source (which verifies existence, but no mention of notability). flaming lawyer 05:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author Keep Nomination was completed immediately after creation of the article, indicating that the nominator made no attempt to look for sourcing on his own. (Why don't people ever ask for more before nominating for deletion?) The group passes WP:MUSIC by having two releases on a well-known label (Blind Pig Records) and for being nominated for a Grammy award. Methinks the nominator didn't like the article because it's stubby and was just a start for others who know more about gospel than I do to flesh out. Chubbles (talk) 05:19, 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. Synergy 01:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen Academicals[edit]

Article about a possible upcoming novel which by article's own admission author is only now writing. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we should wait till publication, barring notable scandals and so on, and totally fails WP:NOTE, as many books are being written at any given time. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CRYSTAL does not require that we hold off on articles about books until their publication. This book is one in a well-established series, by a highly notable author; a verifiable publication date for the book has been announced, (October 8, 2009), and there has already been considerable speculation/discussion/analysis concerning the work. As for notability, WP:CRYSTAL gives the standard that "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". This book will be notable once it's published; therefore it satisfies WP:CRYSTAL notability standards now. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that there's a lot of speculation in now way satisfies CRYSTAL, and having examined a number of the articles on the novels, all that's given is an overlong plot, occasionally some trivia, or a fan-spec based list of themes or continuity or connections to other novels, so I'm in no way convinced that most if the novels have any specific notability. The publication date is almost a year away; not impending within days, so the ' if it had occurred also holds no water. ThuranX (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the risk of committing the sin of implying inherited notability, this is Terry Pratchett we're talking about, not some minor author; if those other articles you are looking at fail to demonstrate notability well, the likely explanation is that the articles are poorly written. As for your second point, Amazon is selling copies of the book right now. If for some reason the book is never published, the incident of a major book being sold in advance and then never published would be notable enough for an article. Treading further into Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions territory, remember that we've had articles on other future books, such as the Harry Potter series, years before their publication dates; in fact we have the template ((future book)) specifically devoted to future books. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, that's all you're doing - attaching inherited notability. that's not a valid reason to keep. not at all. ThuranX (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Amazon is already selling it, then I say that makes it notable. Plus there is a lot of coverage. Dream Focus (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentNo,that's my point. there's pretty much no coverage. And there's nothing notable about the intent of an author to keep writing books. It's called continued employment. ThuranX (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that any novel by Terry Pratchett is inherently notable. And he's got thirty-something full-length books to his credit; if he's announced the title and a publication date, then I believe we're talking about a genuine and notable book that really will appear.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Inherited Notability is a poor argument for keeping an article. There's no inherited notability for every book by every author we have on Wikipedia, because there is no inherited notability in that circumstance.ThuranX (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak keep I am not sure that we need individual articles about the Discworld books, but as we do have them it seems to be a no-brainer. It would make no sense to delete now only to recreate in October, which would definitely be necessary for the reasons given by others above. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Commnet WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS seems to be the best reply to this (no policy linkfarming intended); in fact, I'd like to mass nominate a great many of the Discworld books. It seems that well over half (I have not yet looked at every single one), are NOTHING but an overly long and laudatory plot section followed by fan conjecture about themes, connections to other novels, who characters are clever copies of ,and so on. We'd do far better to report specifically on the few novels of his which did receive major coverage, and move on with merging the rest back to an article Novels of Discworld or something similar, which could aggregate the questionably minimal notability of the individual works and show that as a collection, there's some amount of notability. ThuranX (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles such as Feet of Clay are not particularly encyclopedic, but I think just like the notability requirements for scientific topics are relaxed it's also OK to make allowances for popular topics. I don't see how fighting a battle that can't be won helps to build an encyclopedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is not that "the notability requirements are relaxed",but rather that somewhat different notability criteria apply. What we accept as a RS differs from subject to subject, but that's a function of what are the reliable sources for that particular subject. DGG (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't even see any assert of notability in that article, and no sources at all beyond the author's website. Are we really going to say that an article with even more flaws than that should be kept? ThuranX (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After trying (in vain) to find a review of Feet of Clay to establish individual notability of the book I understand your position a bit better. I am still sure that such a thing must exist, although perhaps not easily available online. I still think my arguments are valid, although admittedly a bit weak, and so I changed my !vote. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For certain authors , we can tell very well in advance that the books are going to be notable, and there may also be sufficient information to write an article. In that case, it does not fall under CRSTAL. I am in fact not sure that a combination articles would not ultimately be appropriate, but that's a question of style. DGG (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that for some authors, a book may be notable in advance, Salman Rushdie for example. However, there's no assertion of notability for numerous previous books of his, including the aforementioned Feet of Clay, and there's none for this one. We can't keep based on the supposition that we can SUPPOSE there to be notability. That's a supposition about a supposition, an if this, maybe that situation. It's not enough. ThuranX (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are at least two reliable sources about this book, listed in the references section. We don't have to suppose that there's notability, it's demonstrated by the existence of those sources. Also, DGG is correct in that this book is pretty-much guaranteed to be even more notable once it has been published. JulesH (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as it is only going to be recreated again. rdunn PLIB 09:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable author, date of publishing was determined.--Yopie 12:38, 28 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 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valaned[edit]

WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:NEO. That's it. flaming lawyer 04:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure, unreferenced slang. FlyingToaster 04:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nonnotable neologism that probably belongs in Wiktionary, anyway. It doesn't help any either with only about 47 gHits. MuZemike 03:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of the 47 gHits MuZemike linked to most are false hits as far as I can tell. SharkD (talk) 19:35, 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 delete. Tone 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Eye (Canadian drink)[edit]

It's a recipe... for an alcoholic tomato? I'm sure WP:NOT covers this in some way, shape, or form. flaming lawyer 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found it: WP:NOTHOWTO (or WP:NOTMANUAL, etc.) flaming lawyer 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTMANUAL includes recipes. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to publish recipes. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete I concur with the arguments above - the article is nothing more than a drink recipe.Geoff ^T ^C 23:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 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 withdrawn after a huge cleanup. flaming lawyer 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster Country Day School[edit]

What? Where is this "Lancaster Country?" Where are the sources? Should be CSD'd, but A7 excludes schools... (damn...) flaming lawyer 03:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For future reference, "Country Day School" is a term commonly encountered in the names of private schools in the United States. --Orlady (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article was AfD'd four minutes after creation. It will probably turn out to be non-notable, but let's give the page creator time to build the article, okay? Baileypalblue (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... The AfD should last a week, giving the creator plenty of time to improve it. flaming lawyer 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By and large, schools get included no matter how obsure they are. I found 319k Ghits and am about to put some references in the article to establish notability. ArcAngel (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that those hits are spread out over the many, many, many different schools named Lancaster Country Day School? Good luck finding the right one. The article doesn't even mention a location. flaming lawyer 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have faith, young padawan. ArcAngel (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still doubt your ability to provide such links, the Star Wars reference cheers me up a bit. flaming lawyer 04:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observe the power of the force. Also, keep since consensus is into keeping schools that serve 9-12th grades. SMSpivey (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article out now. I think I have proven my ability with the links provided. :) ArcAngel (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep the subject [25], [26] is probably notable ("a private, independent, non-sectarian, coeducational, college-preparatory school" from pre-K to 12th grade) but the page makes no claim of notable nor even clearly identifies its intended subject. JJL (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep such schools are notable.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely a school that is 100 years old and includes a high school will turn out to be notable. I've done some editing on the article, including adding a link to one third-party source. More can be found. There's plenty of news coverage of its sports teams, and I found something about its participation in Chemistry Olympiad, but without enough context to add it to the article. BTW, please don't bite the newbies: this was the contributor's very first edit, and the only thanks the contributor received was a near-instantaneous notification of the AfD, without so much as a perfunctory "Welcome to Wikipedia." --Orlady (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are best considered notable here, for the very good reason that almost all actually are, and the work in weeding out the 5 or 10% isn't worth it, considering our likely error rate. In almost all cases sources for this to turn out to be available. This particular afd is a good example of why--this is in fact a major private (in the US sense) school, with a long history. I agree the original article was contemptible, but anyone who knew about area codes should have been able to realise where the school was, and then look for sources. DGG (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are available to meet WP:ORG. Premature nomination. No reason to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mariah Carey tours[edit]

The article is exactly as a sounds, a brief list of all of her tours and a number of cherry picked live concert performances. That's it, that's the entire article. Odin's Beard (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:LIST. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks reasonable to me. The list-formatted information doesn't belong on Mariah Carey, which is a rather large article and probably shouldn't be expanded much further, but it definitely belongs somewhere, so this article seems like a reasonable choice. JulesH (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Seems reasonable to have a list of tours for the "first recording artist to have her first five singles top the U.S." --J.Mundo (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power Chamber[edit]

Insufficient reliable sources to verify information in article —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has 14 different references to various episodes which show plenty to verify the information within. ~~Also, this AFD is not properly done, as the article itself has not been tagged by the nominator.~~—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ryulong. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why?. Do not vote. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is saying that he agrees with my statement and cannot say it any clearly than I did as to why this page should be kept.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a reason why people agree with someone. For example, if you say that you want Wikipedia to be a television channel because you'd want to watch it for a television version of articles, and if I agreed with you, I'd need to explain why I'd agreed with you. If the reason was because we just didn't to read them and just watch, I'd have to state that reason. I'm not saying whether I really think a television version of Wikipedia would be good, but I'm just making up an example to illustrate my point. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one of those pivotal aspects in the PR universe, and unlike various other fan-base supported articles as you find within DC universes, this one actually has the proper sources and citations to back it up. No reason for a deletion. Floria L (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What citations do you have?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:03, 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 per WP:SNOW. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnet Ball[edit]

Game made up by some kids some day. Inherently non-notable. role^player 02:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete made-up, not notable, etc. Empire3131 (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:MADEUP. Schuym1 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:MADEUP. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Willydick (talk) 03:30, 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 speedy deleted (CSD G7). The author of only substantial content blanked the page and explicitedly requested deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Radio Association, Inc. - K0MSP[edit]

No refs, fails WP:CORP. flaming lawyer 02:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: The only sources I can turn up that are not the organization's website (http://www.2meters.org/) only prove the existance of the organization, not the notability of it. While the organization has a pretty comprehensive website for a repeater association, and has "some of the highest performance Amateur Radio Repeaters in the Twin Cities Area," I can find nothing that suggests this organization is anything more than an average repeater association type outfit. Since I see no evidence of notability that would pass WP:CORP, WP:ORG (they may be incorporated, but looks like just a repeater org), and WP:Notability, I must move for the deletion of this article. I would be open to reconsideration if printed matter sources were offered for proving notability, since I know many ham radio clubs were much most active and publicized prior to the late 90's when internet access became common. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Author has blanked page and requested deletion. See: Midwest Radio Association, Inc. - K0MSP, "Sorry for the misunderstanding. This is indeed a regular Amateur Radio group and does not meet your notability requirements. I have removed the article from your system.", by User:ComPilot, article creator. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:11, 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. Tone 22:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kazem HajirAzad[edit]

Non-notable autobiography (article is written by User:Kazem HajirAzad). Very few hits on Google: "Kazem HajirAzad" returns only 18 counting Wikipedia, "Kazem Hajir Azad" returns 8 and "Kazem Hazhir Azad" returns 26. CyberGhostface (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Iranian film and stage actor (see references in article's References section). Google hits are not a good method for demonstrating non-notability for a subject whose work is in non-English, and in non-English-speaking locales, particularly when there seem to be problems spelling/transliterating the subject's name into English. The subject of the article seems to have written virtually all of it, either logged in as User:Kazem_HajirAzad or under associated IPs; however, the material added is not self-serving and there's no reason to doubt its authenticity, so it will satisfy WP:V's regs on self-published sources if someone else adds material to the article. Rather than deletion, this article needs a re-write and page move to the correct spelling of the subject's name. Baileypalblue (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with Baileypalblue. Not sure what is notable and what isn't in terms of Iranian cinema, but it's not fair to judge with the article only partially done. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the references seem to check out. He is notable in his country. Dream Focus (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your condescending "yes, even non-Americans count as notable" in the history--I don't doubt that foreigners can be notable, obviously, but if he was truly notable he and his relatives wouldn't have to be editing and creating his own article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the references. And COI is most definitely not a reason for deletion--in practice relatives do write quite a number of articles, some of them perfectly viable. It's a reason for checking, not deletion.DGG (talk) 02:06, 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. Tone 22:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind turbine manufacturers[edit]

Once again this page has become a spam magnet. Many redlinks and non-notable entries. Not encyclopedic. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed", see WP:NOTDIR. Notable content already covered in several other articles, eg., Renewable energy commercialization#Wind power companies. Johnfos (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it falls closer to WP:LIST, which would allow this type of article to be acceptable. Redlinks can be filled in and spam can be removed. Many of the entries on the list have articles on Wikipedia. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An organized list, so WP:NOTDIR does not apply; it meets WP:LIST'S criteria (top ten and subprovider lists provide information, article is useful for navigation, development). The tendency of some users to add spam is not a valid reason for deletion of the entire list. As a list, it's not a content fork of articles that also discuss the topic. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has many lists of the form: List of * manufacturers, for example List of computer hardware manufacturers, List of aircraft manufacturers, List of motorcycle manufacturers, etc. All are prone to spam and red links in their early stages of development. Lists are difficult to make perfect on the first attempt, as few individual users would have all the necessary information to fill out articles on every vendor in an industry. I lean toward inclusionism, but I'm only an inclusionist about whatever is fixable, and this list is clearly fixable. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about wind farms or other mentions of wind turbines (in articles about geographic locations, etc.), and many of these mention (or should mention) the wind turbine vendors, so there is no doubt we need to create articles for these red links. I've been sorting (categorizing) wind-power-related photos on Commons (see commons:User:Teratornis#Categories), and one of the useful categorizations is by wind turbine manufacturer (commons:Category:Vestas Wind Systems, commons:Category:REpower, commons:Category:Suzlon Energy, etc.). It takes a lot of work and a lot of Wikipedians to build all this structure, but we'll get there eventually. --Teratornis (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list needs much improvement, but it is an encyclopedic list article in its early stages. A list of wind turbine manufacturers is one element in providing an understanding of the technology and the industry, and I imagine that the list is very useful for article contributors. As for future improvement, I'd want to see the main list converted to a sortable table form, including company name, country, dates, and any predecessor or successor companies (needed because this is an industry susceptible to transition through merger and acquisitions). --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 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 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Chains' fourth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:CRYSTAL and STOP - Hammer Time! flaming lawyer 01:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G4) as recreation of deleted material. We could have saved some time and tagged it for G4 instead of another AFD. Anyway, it's Hammertime! MuZemike 03:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was like 8 months ago... I don't think that counts... flaming lawyer 04:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8 months ago, and not the same article. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once it has a title and release date, then create. No Excuses, in a Nutshell, delete. Again. Lugnuts (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete , Directly from Ten Pound Hammer's Law: "There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known." Also, nothing in the article is crystal balled. 13:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.143.221 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiffer[edit]

About an Arabic loanword in French language for smoking pot. No usage in English language reported, hence don't belong to English wikipedia - 7-bubёn >t 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. The article has no sources describing this word usage and seems to be OR. The only mention of this word in the context of cannabis that I could find in RS was a brief dictionary entry [27], claiming that the word is of German origin. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 01:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And add references. The word crosses numerous national boundaries and has various meaning that are appropriate to include in an encyclopedia. Let's track down reliable sources so we can include this term. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete foreign dicdef. Check for french wiktionary. Laudak (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is about a word and thus would be more suited to a dictionary than an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:37, 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 00:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ht-//Miner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ht-//Miner

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn software. Laudak (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above - seems non notable RT | Talk 15:20, 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. No reliable sources, original research, no expression of notability seicer | talk | contribs 16:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrarian Journalism[edit]

Contested prod. Very few ghits. Utterly irrelevant references. Essay. Fails WP:VER, WP:OR.

"Contrarian" is merely an unusual adjective rather than a proper genre such as "Sports journalism" - it's something that any journalist might do from time to time.

It should ideally be redirected to the main article on Contrarianism, except there isn't one. andy (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I trust this is the place to respond to your comments.

Clearly you know next to nothing about journalism or its styles (contrarianism would not be regarded by most journalists as a genre). Contrarian is not an unsual adjective in journalism (and it's primarily a noun by the way). If you think any journalist might "do" contrarian articles from time to time, you clearly know little about what they do.

If you think this is orginal research, then I suspect you've done little of that too. There are a few illustrations referenced for the interest of the reader. They do not mean the article is guilty of being original research.

I admit the article could edited to improve its wikiness, but I thought that was the way the Wiki process works, rather than having a wiki priest simply point the bone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillairs (talk • contribs) 10:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually I was a journalist for 17 years and used to teach it at postgraduate level. Your comment on the article's talk page together with the article itself indicates that you believe it to be a genre. "Contrarianism" is simply a technique employed by most journalists throughout their careers and some journalists all the time - and this article is not about that technique. Also, please read the policies at WP:OR and WP:VER. andy (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article looks like original research, and has no verifiability. The references given are pretty much unrelated to the article (such as the definition, which we should note doesn't even mention journalism), or are used to reference very specific factoids and not the actual article. The article is synthesis and original research. Beyond that, if this is so important to journalism, why isn't there some kind of meaningful reference from journalism textbooks or journals? Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly the delete advocates have done no reasearch on the subject whatsoever, assuming they would understand what they're reading anyway. Daniel Schorr, probably they have never heard of him either, is a journalist discribed as a Contrarian's Contrarian, and has written volumes on the subject, including a book on the subject. Numerous examples can be found ... 'Why the Wired West still matters - Personal media, contrarian journalism provide counterweights to Eastern media's groupthink - This column appeared April 30, 2002, in the Online Journalism'. You must remember that the bulk of those favoring deletion of articles are themselves not contributors, but rather engage in searches for new articles to remove from WP as an excercise in self gratification. Sadly admins that do the final deletion simply count deletion votes, having no better means of determining the worth of the information. DasV (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - given the somewhat aggressive tone of this editor's contribution it's worth noting that he has recently been warned for personal attacks, 3RR and trolling. He seems to have something against Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth, who I suspect is the subject of his comments about ignorant editors. andy (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the issues of verifiability and original research haven't been addressed. "Contrarian" is simply an adjective. andy (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Actually it is a general fact that those voting for deletion of articles usually have no familiarity with the material they propose to delete. If it is aggressive to poiint this out that is a reflection on those who defend the propriety to do so. Had the commentator bothered to look he would have found that the warnings for personal attacks followed personal attacks by others, which were objected to; including remarks to the effect that I was insane. But then I guess such remarks when made by others should be ignored. The so-called trolling was no more than a clarification of a personal attack by someone else, which was without rancor. The 3RR was incorrect, a modified version was inserted; the editor claiming 3RR did not bother to read the changes, and restored the version. There was no statement regarding ignorant editors or the editor named. This is all off point. The fact is Contrarian Journalism is a type of journalism which the article describes. It does not warrant deletion. Certainly not by people who do not understand the topic. Nevertheless, such is the workings of WP. I believe it would be better to demonstrate some actual problem with the article than to discuss my faults. DasV (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is an actual problem with the article: failure of two WP policies. If you can provide adequate references please do so and I'll withdraw my nomination. BTW I do understand the topic - as I said, I have both worked as a journalist and taught at postgraduate level. I've not come across the term and neither, judging from the very low number of ghits, have many other people. Please address the real shortcomings of this article rather than the imagined shortcomings of other editors. andy (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Simple ... do a search for Contrarian Journalism. It should be, but it is not, for those voting for deletion to overcome the presumption that the article has value ... else why would someone take the time to compose it? What exactly are they selling with this article?? DasV (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Andy: you say that DasV's comment are "somewhat aggressive". They didn't strike me as aggressive but how did you think I would find your comments? Your comments were, to say the least, terse, and encased in jargon you assume I should understand to participate in the Wiki process. To be frank, I found this intimidatory?

- But back to the point: in your most recent comment you repeat your request for references but do not specifically address what is wrong with the Daniel Schorr reference. The point of the article is that contrarian journalism is emerging as a style of journalism. In the past there have been a few contrarians but it is growing along with the increasing diversity in media. Your assertion that most journalists have indulged in contrarianism is not backed by anything other than your claim that you have been a working journalist and teacher of journalism. In my experience most working journalists spend their lives toeing editorial lines or, when they tire of this, find themselves in the PR industry which is like moving from purgatory to hell.

- To sum up: you mentioned two policies but provided no specifics other than the lack of references to contrarian journalism. Then, when I addressed this with the Daniel Schorr reference, you simply repeated the reference to the two policies.

Fillairs (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Question: You said in your last edit "when I addressed this with the Daniel Schorr reference" but in fact that reference was made by DasV. Are you the same person? andy (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Answer No I was referring to a revised version of the article, which DasV had read, but you had apparently not seen. You can see the revised version under My Contributions. This is my first venture into Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how the process works. If the original article is deleted, what happens to the revised version? I was invited to revise it, which is what I did.

Fillairs (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - NoteThe revised version was submitted 08:19 23 January 2009

Fillairs (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I can't see any such reference there. Please give the url of this reference. andy (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete just original research from start to finish - "Those people fit the definition I made up, therefore the definition I made up is real". --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In its original state it read as a personal essay with original research and synthesis of various sources into a whole somewhat less than the sum of its parts. To claim Muggeridge as a "contrarian journalist" there needs to be at least one reliable source which covers this as more than a passing mention. In its current state, as I write this, it is a dictionary definition for a neologism. Neither form belongs in an encyclopaedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Original research. The present version of the article has no sources at all. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable phrase. 44 ghits [28]. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the issues raised for Deletion are simply buggaboos from wandering deletists, and completely ignore the fact that reputable and famous journalists are known for 'contrarian journalism', which the article explains. 'Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. Mark Twain' Deletists are the dogmatists of Wikipedia. DasV (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if i get called a contrarian and simple bugaboo with wandering deletist intentions of steak-filled, Twain-esque dogmatism once more, i might change my vote. also, does not pass WP:N nor WP:RS Theserialcomma (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Euthyphro is perfectly certain of his own ethical rectitude even in morally ambiguous situations. Yet he is also unable to define what "piety" (moral duty) really is. DasV (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You understand that without any reliable sources, this article will be deleted? You are wasting your time arguing with all and sundry here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment There is no argument. Sources were provided and discounted. Anyone with NPOV could find similar sources and improve the article. That is not the purpose here. DasV (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious conjunction of the words "contrarian" and "journalism", with nothing more to say than that. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winterthyme[edit]

No refs, possible WP:HOAX. flaming lawyer 01:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find a restaurant and a commonly available herb that is much used in domestic cooking Thymus vulgaris. However, I cannot find any reference to using either as an hallucinogen. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. If it indeed was a drug thats "gaining prevalance throughout the northeastern united states", you would have expected some news organization to have noticed by now. (And I have never noticed thyme of the common or garden variety to be anything other than tasty, but that's just my opinion :)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as complete bollocks.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eating Us[edit]

Delete. No reliable sources. Violates WP:V ,WP:CRYSTAL, and probably does not meet the WP:MUSIC notability standard. brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. Clearly an album is coming based on the updates to their official site and myspace page. Keep the page around, even if it has little information, we're just going to have to create it again in a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goaliedudegreg (talk • contribs) 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. WP:CRYSTAL is applicable today, while WP:N isn't. Recreate the article when WP:CRYSTAL was yesterday. Themfromspace (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. An album is coming based on their official site and myspace, I say keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.193.236 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina awards and recognition[edit]

Content fork that makes little sense for independent article. Most of these awards are not independently notable. Article mistitled, too. THF (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the same content is already in the main article, and there is no compelling reason for this information to be split out. -- Whpq (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the contrary, the main article must be cleaned of this list (done), leaving only most notable ones. Just the same, there is no compelling reason to keep everything in one looooong page. Wikiepdia is not paper, and spitting out this article along a clean-cut crack only increases readability. - 7-bubёn >t 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an attempt to have an additional article on a single topic. It should be obvious that a persons awards is not a separate topic from the person's bio. There may be some cases where t he list is to large to be managed in the main article, but this is not one of them. DGG (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the Nina Girado article; that article is not too long, and the subsection is not notable enough to justify a split, per Wikipedia:SUMMARY#Avoiding_unnecessary_splits. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unnecessary fork, listcruft. JamesBurns (talk) 04:03, 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. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ponuganti[edit]

No claim of notability in this substub article on a family name. Jfire (talk) 04:21, 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 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. --Dynaflow babble 02:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: It is not enough for a stub as it stands. An extra sentence and a reference would make all the difference. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'd be willing to flop over to a keep if any more worthwhile info to fill this stubstub out were to be forthcoming. -Yupik (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - had this been released a year and a half later, I would have tagged it for speedy deletion CSD A7. There is no assertion of notability in the one sentence "article." B.Wind (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Married to the Sea. kur ykh 08:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NatalieDee[edit]

Non-notable webcomic, drawn by a cartoonist whose own article was AfD'ed and deleted as NN. The comic has a sibling, Married to the Sea, whose assertion of notability and continued survival on Wikipedia seem to rest on having ended up in the "Brilliant"/"Lowbrow" corner of New York Magazine's Approval Matrix at some point back in 2006. There doesn't seem to be any sustainable claim to real notability for this article's webcomic per Wikipedia:Notability (web), other than that it's big -- or at least not small -- on Facebook. --Dynaflow babble 15:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —--Dynaflow babble 18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —--Dynaflow babble 18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and Married to the Sea with the article Drew (webcomic artist), and rename that article to Drew and Natalie Dee. There's enough content and notability for the aggregate of the three, but I agree, they make poor individual articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a decent idea. We could also conceivably DRV the deleted Natalie Dee article to immediately merge its content, however substantial it may have been, into the new, amalgamated article and then redirect its title there. --Dynaflow babble 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am, as a rule, willing to undelete articles for userfication or merging without a DRV, so if we go this route, drop a note on my talk page and I'll undelete the article and make a redirect for you. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; let's see how this AfD pans out first. If a clear consensus develops for a merger, I'd be glad to Frankenstein everything together. --Dynaflow babble 20:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blieve that NatalieDee.com should be merged with Drew's article. Should we merge Hillary and Bill Clinton too? Saying that though, it'd be better than nothing.

For one, this article is not about the arguably non-notable Natalie Dee, it is about NatalieDee.com. Also, bearing in mind that Married to the Sea very rightly already has a Wikipedia page and that NatalieDee.com has a circulation that is not only much greater than Married to the Sea, but Natalie Dee (56,900,000 per month) is near equal to Married to the Sea (32.1million) and Toothpaste for Dinner (36.2million) added together! (To put this in to perspective; an average of 22 people look at a NatalieDee.com comic every second.

I would say that Natalie Dee is indeed notable and far more notable than many other pages that have survived AfD. IMO the deletion Nazis need to let go of the 'training wheels' style rules and make a decision based on reason, common sense and the plain facts rather than whether or not it has been in print (shall we delete the article for Wikipedia while we're at it?).

Either way, what does it hurt to leave a page that is already created and which many people wish to read? And what does it gain to delete it? Shane.Bell (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "what does it hurt" question is addressed at WP:NOHARM; as far as the statistics on hits you give, if there are reliable, verifiable sources that show those numbers, they should be added to the article to establish notability. As the article currently exists, however, I think there are valid questions about notability and there should be a merge as discussed above. Rnb (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, at least, the merge makes sense - they're an art team. They work as a team on a comic, and have solo projects as well. There's clearly a single, coherent topic to the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have researched the number of unique hits. Here are my findings comparing webcomics already on Wikipedia compared to NalatieDee.com. Compare.com Site Analytics.As you can see, I believe there is a strong case that this website is notable in its own right.Spastic on elastic (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- if we're going to have any webcomics here NatalieDee probably passes the the ol' notability threshold. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dynaflow and Phil Sandifer above. Not enough reputable independent sources for individual articles. --Dragonfiend (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but only her and her comic, no need to merge her info with her hubby's. -Yupik (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the "references" cited by the article, three of them are Wikipedia mirrors, two are Facebook (hardly a reliable source), and only one might be a reliable source, thus it appears to fall short on WP:RS and WP:N (possibly also WP:V). Also, Notability is not inherited, and merging the article about one woman's webcomic to her husband's biography (or, worse, an article on her husband's webcomic) seems inappropriate as well. In addition, this article appears slightly spammy to me. B.Wind (talk) 04:34, 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 00:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Fuck It?![edit]

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail notability. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ArcAngel (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleto Fails WP:MUSIC, didn't chart, no refs other than Myspace and their label... flaming lawyer 01:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Delete It?! per failure to chart, as described above. Worth a mention in the band's article, and no more. Mandsford (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since there's really not much to merge, and there is no independent notability. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 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. flaming lawyer 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riding the Rails[edit]

No refs = no visible notability... flaming lawyer 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to the official website, where the entire cartoon in question can be watched. I believe all the cartoons could be mentioned in an article named List of Betty Boop episodes, perhaps. Or were they shown as entire movies on their own? These things were popular back in the day, but someone would have to look around the official website and elsewhere to see just how successful each movie was, to determine if it gets its own page or not. She was a significant figure in history, as noted by many historians. Dream Focus (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say it's a "significant figure in history, as noted by many historians." Could you provide some links to support that? It could save (or kill, if there aren't any) the article. flaming lawyer 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Boop#Betty%20as%20sex%20symbol They have a reference to a New York Times article. I was thinking of a program I saw on the History Channel, and places elsewhere where she was mentioned. Dream Focus (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(no such section...) flaming lawyer 01:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are dozens of articles, dedicated to each of her movies. Check her main article for a list of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Boop#Filmography%20(Betty%20Boop%20series) If it is determined they aren't popular enough to stand on their own, then they should be merged into one list. I see nothing wrong with each film having its own page though, so I vote KEEP Dream Focus (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem... WP:WAX... flaming lawyer 01:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point was that you'd need to nominate all the other articles as well, for deletion or merger, not just take out one of them. Unless some were more popular than others when they came out of course. How many people have to see a movie to make it notable enough to stand on its own? Dream Focus (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um... That's exactly what WP:WAX says... flaming lawyer 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Let's delete them all! MuZemike 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sigh. Its not the same thing actually. All are related. Wikipedia delete policy allows for nominating a lot of related things at once, such as songs from the same album which each have their own page, etc. Anyway, not relevant, since this one has an Oscar nomination, and the right to stand on its own. I believe there is a rule about being nominated for a major award somewhere. Dream Focus (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's an Oscar-nominated film [29]. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul. Even anything recent that has been nominated for an Oscar is safe to say that it's notable. Same applies to films waaaay back then. MuZemike 03:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, re-opening. I can't see where anyone is getting the Oscar nomination from, I can't find a mention of it on the article or the linked reference. flaming lawyer 03:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Mayor(film)[edit]

I can't find any evidence of this film in IMDB, or via ghits. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CRYSTAL, possibly WP:HOAX? (I've moved to American Mayor (film) to add the much-needed space) flaming lawyer 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: satisfies WP:HOAX and WP:NFF (it is real and in post-production) [30] but nevertheless is not notable. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:34, 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. Specific sources are not cited for retention. MBisanz ^talk 08:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exaile[edit]

Non-notable. No claim to notability. Claim is that this is a porting effort from one open-source project (which also may not be notable) to another. After the first paragraph, is a list of features pretty much identical to any media player. Entirely unsourced except to the project web page. ) Miami33139 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only refs are to it's website (self-refs don't count). flaming lawyer 01:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have time to fix the article myself, but Exaile been reviewed by several good sources (Linux.com and Softpedia come up at the top), all of which rate it highly and compare it to Amarok. I might also add that it's one of the twenty featured projects on Launchpad, one of largest and most important free software portals on the internet. Estemi (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do these indicate notability, or just that the software exists? A download site like softpedia is kind of expected to write things that will draw people to it, they also indicate it has a pitiful number of downloads. Have any major mainstream news written about this software, or is it just another open-source project which gets geek awareness but little use? Miami33139 (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said :) . flaming lawyer 02:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exaile is installed in 40345 PCs on Ubuntu. It is more than QEMU. See result of Ubuntu Popularity Contest: http://popcon.ubuntu.com/universe/by_inst .--Nazodane (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

40,000 installs is not that much for a media player. Even Zune beats that. This argues against notability, not for it. Miami33139 (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand popcon. It's voluntary and only measures machines and distros using the Ubuntu universe repositories. As a population sample it indicates that Exaile is in the top three percentile of popular Linux applications, and by extrapolation has a usership of several hundreds of thousands conservatively. Estemi (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is still a minor amount in the field of media players! Even if it numbered in the millions, popularity does not always mean notability. The Ubuntu popularity contest is a fine primary source after you've established notability with multiple third party references showing mainstream recognition. Find those references and this discussion is over but the popularity contest cannot stand as an independent measure of notability. Miami33139 (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Estemi and Nazodane have shown several sources for the article. --Falcorian ^(talk) 08:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only potential sources I found were [31] and [32]. I don't think that these two software reviews is enough to establish notability. -Atmoz (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fight the Pipe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

nn organisation also fails wp:corp Oo7565 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note i am sorry again i that afd for early today about it did not show up anywhere so i try again i am very sorry againOo7565 (talk) 19:15, 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 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do you see those refs at the bottom of the page? They assert notability. And yes, it actually does satisfy WP:CORP#Non-commercial organizations, as "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale." (they're a protest organization against for importing oil... importing = international... seeing a connection?) flaming lawyer 01:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced from references from the BBC. Meets WP:N and WP:RS. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep it's not well written but the sources are there and obvious. Tagged for clean up. --neon white talk 17:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although protests against the pipe are well covered in the references, none of them actually mention an organisation by the name of 'Fight the Pipe' (a couple of protest groups - 'Rising Tide' and 'Safe Haven Network' - are in fact mentioned in some references, but not 'Stop the Pipe'). The subject thus fails WP:N because there is a lack of significant coverage about the organisation itself in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I am making the distinction here between the generic protests, which may be notable, and the organisation, which is not. The 'Fight the Pipe' website, which is linked in the article, is a blog and thus is both a primary source and not a reliable source. Since there are no reliable sources (I find no news coverage of an organisation called 'Fight the Pipe'[33]), the subject also fails one of our core policies, that of being verifiable in a reliable source. No objection to the generic protests being covered in Wikipedia as these seem to be notable; actually, I see that they are covered in South Wales Gas Pipeline. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi an eco tour[edit]

Non-notable tourist attraction, borderline spam, but speedy was declined. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It says someone important from Finland visited there. Miami33139 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SPAM even though it doesn't quite make clear the company it's advertising for [34]. As far as I can tell, this is just a tourist operation -- a good one apparently, but the only notability claimed is that a famous person tried it out, and notability is not inherited. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:17, 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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drop dead darlin[edit]

Fails WP:BAND. Lack of third-party sources to establish notability. PROD notice removed with no explanation given. ^LeaveSleaves 14:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. - 7-bubёn >t 00:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've moved the page to Drop Dead Darlin, it's proper capitalization. flaming lawyer 00:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin If closed "delete" with the Zman script, it will only delete the redirect. You'll have to delete Drop Dead Darlin by hand. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. No coverage in reliable sources as far as I can see. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 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 merge to Takoma Park, Maryland. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takoma Park Folk Festival[edit]

Article does not assert notability of the festival, and no sources to indicate otherwise. Suggest Delete or, if kept Merge with Takoma Park--Tznkai (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lot's of press releases and lots of event announcements like this which don't establish notability. But also at least one article like this one. And significant enough to get listed into tourism books like this and this. At the very least, it's a merge. I see no reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Questionable notability, really belongs in the parent article without more clearly established notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created this article (the obvious neutrality problems have been introduced since), and I don't really have anything to add beyond what Whpq said. I'm not totally opposed to a merge. I'll also point out that this festival was founded by the mayor of Takoma Park - obviously this isn't really a basis for supposing notability, but... Takoma Park's not some tiny burg. Its mayor is a pretty big deal, and mayors of important towns don't just found festivals that last for thirty years willy-nilly. Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:04, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Takoma Park, Maryland per notability guidelines for non-commercial organizations, unless non-local coverage of the subject can be found. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Takoma Park, Maryland. While the arguments above prove the festival exists, there is a huge lack of third-party, independent, reliable sources that establish notability for a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:11, 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 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Barreda[edit]

Notability: orphaned article; deleted from Spanish Wikipedia; only Spanish sources; WP:NOT a newspaper. Rd232 ^talk 11:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Article seems well-referenced (the fact the sources are all in Spanish should not be considered in a deletion discussion), but this is a WP:BLP1E. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or cover the event not the person - In my opinion, the fact that sources are in Spanish, it was deleted on es.wikipedia.org, and it is orphaned are irrelevant to an AfD discussion. That leaves us with the notability question. I agree with User:Blanchardb that this probably falls under WP:BLP1E as notable for only one event. But if the event is notable, it could have an article.

Note the fact that there are many media references to this crime, spanning several years, might indicate that it indeed is notable and worthy of an article, in which case this might be redirected to Ricardo Barreda murders. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

America's We The People[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/America's We The People

This party has only received in-passing coverage as far as I can tell. The "Boston TV Party" may be a notable event, but even in the coverage of it, there is no non-trivial coverage of the We the People party.

Just as articles aren't meant to have trivia sections, neither is Wikipedia intended to be a collection of trivia about non-notable organizations, even if they are political parties. Bongo matic 09:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't understand why this has lasted this long. Miami33139 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even a minor third party, active in multiple states, is notable. The party website has reprints of numerous reliable secondary sources (beyond the Boston TV party incident), which would easily establish notability if someone were to track them down at their original publishing sites to confirm they haven't been fabricated (no reason to think so, just to be on the safe side). I have added mentions of the party in the New York Times and The Guardian which confirm the party meets WP:ORG's requirements regarding non-local coverage. The article needs to be re-written, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. Baileypalblue (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the entire coverage in the NY Times is "said Jeffrey Peters, a New Hampshire resident who is head of a group called We the People that advocates greater political participation". This does not constitute non-trivial coverage of We the People. The Guardian's entire mention is "Jeffrey Peters (We The People party)". Neither can this be considered non-trivial. Bongo matic 02:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the cites you are referring to were added in response to one of the secondary notability criteria for non-commercial organizations, to wit: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". Note this criterion does not require non-trivial coverage, only "verifiable information". The subject still has to meet the general notability criteria, and I contend it does (see the rest of my comment); if you doubt the organization is notable, look at the reliable sources archived at the party's website. Furthermore, remember that lack of reliable sourcing is not a valid criterion for article deletion, unless the subject "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources". Baileypalblue (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale."? Delete, insignificant. AnyPerson (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at that policy again, please. It says: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards ... The scope of their activities is national or international in scale". That does not mean that local organizations are non-notable, only that national/international organizations are generally notable. Further on in the paragraph local organizations are discussed: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." It is emphatically not true that only national or international organizations are notable; rather, there's another criterion to be met for local organizations. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikilawyering is the order of the day, it is worth noting that "may be" does not mean "are automatically", and that in common English, a passing mention of the existence of an organization is not necessarily considered "information" about that organization. Bongo matic 07:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I can see I've side-tracked the discussion with what I intended to be a pro-forma effort to satisfy a secondary criterion that, actually, doesn't apply, because a political party that runs candidates for President in multiple states is not a local organization. Sorry to have derailed the discussion. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that its activities are "national in scope"? I think that would be a view not supported by the consensus definition of that term. Bongo matic 07:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. "156 votes" in a national presidential election is the epitome of non-notable. No non-trivial press coverage. Has no chance of becoming more notable, because it seems to have ceased to exist. Embarrassingly factually inaccurate, as it talks about the "2006 US presidential elections." If the article somehow survives this AFD, it needs a complete rewrite. THF (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article meets WP:G11: Blatant advertising Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GetGo Download Manager[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither can I - article reads like an advert RT | Talk 15:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit new to edit wiki pages... sorry to make it reads like advert... However, you can find information about this program in many downlod/freeware sites, I can't see any difference from this page from pages for other download managers. What about these pages: Free_Download_Manager, GetRight, Orbit_Downloader? I can rewrite it if you think it reads like an advert. I was just following the page content style from those pages... Wikijerry1111 | Talk 06:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monumento a Giuseppe Garibaldi[edit]

nn sculpture Oo7565 (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This sculpture is described in The South American Tour by Annie S. Peck (George H. Doran, 1914), Illustrated Descriptive Argentina Henry Stephens 1917, The New World Guides to the Latin American Republics Hanson & Platt 1945, Baedeker of the Argentine Republic Martinez 1914, Argentina Illustrated, For The Tourist and businessman Martino 1947 and various other similar books. JulesH (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Not particularly notable. There are many statues of Garibaldi, including one in New York's Washington Square Park, a magnificent one in Rome (naturally), a slightly sad one in Bologna, a small one in Barga Vecchia (one of the oldest), others in Milan, Verona, Florence and so on. There used to be one in Moscow, put up in 1918 - not sure if it is still there. Perhaps an article could be written about all the statues, but usually there will be little more to say about them than this stub entry: when it was erected, who paid for it and who the sculptor was. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1918: Not Moscow, but St. Petersburg. The original public plaster statue by Karl Saale (unveiled March 1919) did not survive, but a bronze copy is preserved in Riga. NVO (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All major public monuments are individually notable, no matter how many of them there may be. This one has quite adequate refs for notability, for those who think that the determining factor. DGG (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you drive into Montevideo from the airport, you go along an avenue lined with busts of notable people. If you walk along the rambla there are many more. Within the city there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of public busts and statues. In every city of Latin America there are everywhere busts, statues and monuments of Simon Bolivar, Bernardo O'Higgins, Ghandi etc. Not a monument for every street corner, but certainly more monuments than elementary schools. Rather than have many stub-level articles, one per monument, each just giving the basic information with maybe a photo, it seems better to put the descriptions into a general "monuments" or "landmarks" section in the article for each city, with suitable redirects. WP:LOCAL gives sensible advice. Aymatth2 (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support merging this article into a Monuments of Buenos Aires article, if anybody wants to take the time to make one. JulesH (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW,it's a monumental sized equestrian sculpture, not a portrait bust. I said "all major", not "all". In any case we're not paper,and the large number of something is totally irrelevant. DGG (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a big monument, but there is not a whole lot to say about it. To me, this is more a question of organization than content. That is, the content can be in an article of its own, or a redirect can lead to a section holding the same content that is part of a larger article. The effect is the same for someone looking for information about the monument, but more convenient for someone trying to find out about what there is to see in Buenos Aires. I like the advice in WP:LOCAL: start with a section like Buenos Aires#Landmarks, and if that gets too big make an article on Buenos Aires (Landmarks), and if some of the entries in there get too big, break them out into their own articles. But wait until they get big enough. I may make a start at this, breaking out the landmarks section and including the content here into the new but broader article. To me, this is not a question of whether this large monument deserves inclusion in the encyclopedia - it does - but a question of whether it should have an article all of its own, which will probably never go beyond a stub. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just created Buenos Aires (Landmarks) - a first rough cut - with the content from the monument article included. There is plenty of room in this article to add other landmarks. I will not link it or expand it though until this debate is resolved. Just see it as an illustration of the kind of approach that could be followed. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. We should redirect to it for now, although it may need to become a disambiguation page at some point. JulesH (talk) 08:20, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argus (monitoring software)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The 3rd reference is for a software called Porthos. Schuym1 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a per above. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 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 00:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To avoid potential confusion, there is a notable ARGUS Software, whcih produces a widely used real estate valuation software, but that ARGUS does not relate to this software or company and i could not find much of anything relating to this one. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Network monitoring software is unusual in that it is targeted only at network administrators, not average users. Open source software is unusual in that there is no company paying computer magazines to discuss the software. Nevertheless since this software is routinely distributed as part of Linux and BSD distributions and also available for other operating systems including Windows and MacOS X, it is desirable to have it discussed in an article. And in fact there is what I believe to be sufficient coverage in the media and other relevant third party sources:

an article in Linux Magazine
an article in the ISSA Journal
Top 6 Traffic Monitoring Tools, a commented list of comparable software, compiled by Fyodor (an established computer security expert)

(Added after edit conflict) I believe possible confusion with other, unrelated software in a different field is no valid reason to delete this article, and the assumption that this software is not notable is erroneous. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:21, 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.