< January 29 January 31 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn Following the presentation of Russian-language sources. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Journal (website)[edit]

Russian Journal (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article claims the subject is "the first Russian political tribune in the Internet," but I am unable to locate any independent verification of that statement. The article does not meet WP:V and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot read Russian, but I will accept your argument in good faith and withdraw the nomination. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient notability to warrant inclusion separate from the school. Local newspaper articles are not enough to assert notability, especially when they are not 100% about the teacher. Any mention of this individual should be limited to the school article. yandman 10:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mengullo, Randy[edit]

Mengullo, Randy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment: I see your point. But this subject had also contributed a big part in JJS community for establishing martial arts in a real institution not just a small group but as a regular subject in physical education class for the whole year round for 14 years with a thousand of students every year. I also read the references and the press releases which signify the credibility of the subject. Yes, he maybe training or fucos with the age group and juniors categories but yes he made an impact in his chosen field by capturing many championship titles up to the national level competitions. Correct me if I'm wrong, wikipedia is for everybody and that include kids and it is just formal to include also kids who are achieving at their age not just for adults with world champion title. One thing more, how can you ignore a multi-awarded coach that his references speaks for his credibility? Just like a coin which has two side; a winning team with a dedicated coach behind it.1 Hoy! Pinoy ako. 00:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Do you really think these little articles about people from the Jack and Jill school and similar are going to have a lot of staying power here??? For sure, others don't really think like you do. How can a newcomer develop new article when in the first place you are not helping and even opening the eye about the potential of the article. If Jjskarate won't write about JJS articles and people behind it, will you do the honor? — MMaAsia Sambon Hajime!! 05:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The awards are very significant because it build a strong foundation of the existence of the said sport program in school wherein we can evaluate and formulate if it is effective and progressive curriculum both in competition and in self-defense training wherein thousand of students and other people in the community will be benefited of the results and affected if will not supervised accordingly. Added more, it simply signify that the person concern or connected in that institution are not just self-proclaimed martial artist but rather a qualified one and most of all an achiever in his chosen field.jjska®ate 空手|道® 08:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Those thousand of Jack and Jill students undergone karate training under Randy Mengullo? — MMaAsia Sambon Hajime!! 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All Jack and Jill students are required to join the karate training under sensei Randy Mengullo beacuse it is part of the school curriculum integrated and graded in P.E. class for the whole year round. For those who have potentials they are trained for competition in many athletic meet headed by Randy Mengullo and he organized this sport program in Jack and Jill School and Castleson High way back in 1994 up to the present.jjska®ate 空手|道® 05:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Establishing martial arts training in the real institution and include it as a school curriculum is not a good idea? or I may say it's an old concept? And why the JJS admin continue hiring additional new instructors... does it mean the person concern does not state recognition by peers? I doubt if your elementary school offer a martial arts training for all students. Teaching martials in school is a unique profession and only few has the gift or skills to do it. Just like the Nobel Prize awardees, they are the chosen few.空手道® "avec les mains ou les pieds" 01:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We will try to apply WP:CREATIVE or creative professionals as a martial artist to the person concern. It states that:
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
With my personal opinion having been established martial arts program in school for 14 years and the result is positive likewise the number of students are growing and the school is achieving in that field for me he is an important figure or is widely cited by his peers and fellow instuctors/coach.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
Just like Bruce Lee revolutionized martial arts with his Jeet kune do concept to brighten new ideas in traditional fighting. The subject also develop new technique and concept in teaching martial arts to kids which traditionally suited for adults. Which the program for sure suited for their age, interest, physical and mental capabilities. I may personally say that training with adults would be intirely different compare to elementary children. The teaching techniques were probably interesting because some kids may find the training strenuous or boring to those who have background in martial arts. In short the subject revolutionalized traditional martial arts training to an effective training for kids in the large group.— MMaAsia Sambon Hajime!! 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Bruce Lee had an impact outside of his own school. There are a great many instructors who teach young children--almost anyone who runs a commercial school does so. You may enjoy his training program but if it has "revolutionized" training methods, who else is using this technique? How is it being taught to other instructors? This is preposterous aggrandizement. JJL (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Bruce Lee had a great impact outside of his own school because he is an actor and he even convinced me. There are many great instructor worldwide and anyone who runs a commercial school teach young children too. But are they handling thousand of children every year? Probably, a dozen or two are substantial, or a hundred is great, but a thousand... I doubt it. But it is reality in JJS Karate Dojo. One of a kind.— MMaAsia Sambon Hajime!! 07:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Does the subject fails all the criteria? or somehow he pass some of it and just needed little attention/correction about the details and info of the article?空手道® "avec les mains ou les pieds" 01:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Ok, I understand that more than one contributor to this discussion feels that the subject is notable, but I cannot give credence to somebody's impassioned "feeling" that a subject is notable. We have criteria to deal with. Full disclosure: I AM NOT AN ADMIN. It will be up to an admin to sort through this discussion. In the meantime, here's my accounting:
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
I do not see significant coverage. The most recent article is by the subject himself, and it is a brief piece on why he finds teaching rewarding. Nothing wrong with that. But here, that fails the test.
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
No real problem here, but I do not believe passing this test alone is sufficient.
  • "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
The sources are all local coverage, akin to a village paper covering its local high school contests. Not sufficient, in my view.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
Per above, the most recent, potentially worthwhile source, was written by the subject himself. Not good enough.
  • "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.
Given the above, I fall on the side that says, no guarantee. And in this case, this subject fails the notability test, from my perspective.
You may ask, well what do YOU suggest, Mr. JLG4104? Fair enough. If this person is indeed a really important, beloved figure in his locality, then sooner or later he should become the subject of more coverage by a broader range of larger-scale journalistic and other kinds of sources. When that happens, he may become notable here, as far as I can see.  J L G 4 1 0 4  03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you for that info. Please also try to consider that Karatedo as a sport is not in the priority list of many large-scale journalistic/sports writers compared to boxing, basketball, football and etc., the organization itself is also having a hard time getting sponsors because we are not a multi-dollar event/tournament. What I'm trying to emphasis is, it is very hard nowadays for a karateka to established names compared to other athletes like in boxing and tennis players which is a good source in the article of sports page. Seldom that a karateka will be the top story of the newspaper or other media, lucky if you will be included as a box news. Hope you get my point in dealing with media coverage which personally I find it disavantage to many martial artists. 空手道® "avec les mains ou les pieds" 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do see and respect what you are saying. I see the passion coming through, and I respect that. Part of the problem is that WP, as I see it, is not really a place for pinning up pictures (in a sense) of people who happen to be popular or loved-- it is not a popularity contest. But this does not have to be the end of the story-- you could take it up as a discussion at WP:Notability. I hope my comments have helped at least a little bit.  J L G 4 1 0 4  11:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to clear things up the Visayan Daily Star and Sunstar are members of PPI (Philippine Press Institute), the national association of Philippine Newspaper. Both are respected newspapers in the Philippines with more than 20 years of existence and garnered many journalism awards in the country and not akin to a village paper covering its local high school contests.jjska®ate 空手|道® 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - His info box calls him Sir Randy, has this individual been Knighted? Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - In the Philippines we call or address male teacher as Sir and Maam, Ms and Madam to female teacher. We're not talking about knighted or position/rank in the society but it the respect we offer to our teacher as our 2nd parent in school.jjska®ate 空手|道® 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures may be relevant, and always help liven up an article. Pictures may include:
  • organization logos (check copyright and trademark issues first!)
  • uniforms
  • training equipment
  • important people
  • Consider adding a small and short video of a characteristic drill or exercise. See the m:Video Policy first.
I added pictures and videos regarding this matter. picture 1, picture 2, picture 3, video 1, video 2, video 3— MMaAsia Sambon Hajime!! 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're trying to say that those newspapers are not credible? and less importance compared to those mainstream media?
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Notability_guidelines General points stated that: A single local newspaper article is probably not enough to assert notability, but national mention with some details or multiple local sources that "make a case" for notability. Does he pass this guideline?
  • Does every teacher in school who wrote an article about his job captured the attention of many or I may say pass the standard of Philippine Daily Inquirer as you emphasis? Will somebody does and his article was published nationwide. 1 Hoy! Pinoy ako. 07:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Breakwell[edit]

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

Sources are incredibly thin, article is largely the work of a WP:SPA who has written from obvious personal knowledge about this subject and subject's girlfriend, and nothing else. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Soper[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP, fails WP:CSD#A7 but notability is unsupported by any sources. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pizzerias[edit]

List of pizzerias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page duplicates Category:Pizzerias with the obvious disadvantage of not being automatically updated. It has no additional content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawdroid (talk • contribs) 23:07, January 30, 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. — Aitias // discussion 19:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy squared[edit]

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

Non-notable concept. The creator of this article even says that this theorem is "first appearing publicly in this Wikipedia article." None of the speedy deletion criteria can be applied to this article, so I've brought this article to AfD. Cunard (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This falls somewhere between made up and complete bollocks. --S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a speedy.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer in popular culture[edit]

Lucifer in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced trivia and topic itself is already far better covered in Satan in popular culture. Created by known (and now blocked) sockpuppet. Fails WP:N and WP:V. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted it because the article was a CSD candidate for being created by a blocked user (and it isn't an allegation, it is confirmed). The bulk of the article is what he created then, with IPs adding a few more unsourced "examples" which is common in all such popular culture things. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The sockpuppetry investigation concluded that there was not enough evidence to conclude he was a sockpuppet. That sounds like he was cleared to me. (2) WRT your claim: "the article was a CSD candidate for being created by a blocked user" -- really? How come the the log of actions again User:Omegafouad is empty? It appears to me that you made a serious lapse from policy, and that you really owe the community an open acknowledgment of that. Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't own anything and I haven't made a lapse from policy. The fact is he has ADMITTED to being a sock puppet and to having those socks, a fact you apparently hadn't noticed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King of conspiracy[edit]

King of conspiracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable band, most of the article is spam. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no notability, no sources, advert. Jofakēt (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ritchie[edit]

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

There's enough of a claim of importance (starring role) to avoid speedy deletion, but gsearch not turning up notability. When searching for name + tv series (-wikipedia), hits are entirely passing mentions or wiki mirrors. Gnews not turning up this Jessica Ritchie at all. If deleted, please consider salting, as this article has been recreated many times. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no notability. Jofakēt (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was : Nomination withdrawn; discussion whether and how the article should be merged with Herbert Jones (footballer) may continue at the article's talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taffy jones[edit]

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

No references, I wasn't able to find anything relevant using Google - possible hoax. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I forgot to add that the bit about Dixie Dean's testicle doesn't belong there. It's already adequately covered, with references, under Dixie Dean. I'll edit the article accordingly.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsequent comment I fixed various other issues, so the article is now substantially different from its state when nominated for deletion. There's plenty more to be done, though.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- oh, that's new information. I agree a merge needs to take place (either Herbert Jones to Albert "Taffy" Jones or vice versa) but we need to be sure what his actual name was first, so we get it right! I'll see if I can dig anything up.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsequent comment -- There was a census in 1911, which is available online here: [2]. Jones would've been fifteen. According to that census, the search term "Albert Jones" in "Blackpool" returns exactly one result of a fifteen-year-old and "Herbert Jones" in "Blackpool" returns none. (There was a "Herbert Jones" but he was 14.) This together with the fact that his great-grandson believes him to have been called "Albert" suggests to me that we need to merge Herbert into Albert and not the other way around.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1911 census was held in April 1911, so our subject would in fact have only been 14, so that points to his name actually being Herbert. The Association of Football Statisticians and the Football Association's databases both list him as Herbert, as presumably does the book listed as a source on the other article. That's multiple sources for his name having been Herbert, whereas all Ghits under the Albert version seem to be mirrors of the one piece on the Blackpool F.C. website...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was complex.

The primary presented argument for deletion was that this constitutes a non-neutral fork of another article. While some counter-arguments have been presented, the top of Great_Sphinx_of_Giza#Racial_characteristics makes them untenable. Despite its nonstandard naming convention, this looks like an article, appears in mainspace, and sidesteps editorial consensus that exists (or doesn't exist) at Ancient Egyptian race controversy. However, article development does not occur by magical elves working at night, and good-faith attempts to develop consensus though collective editting should be encouraged. Normally this should occur on the talk page of the relevent article.

Although userspace is a distant second choice and userfication has been mooted, the highly polarised debate combined with the quasi-ownership of articles outside mainspace makes it questionable that this method would result in a positive outcome: Less people would see the article, the same editors would in all likelyhood circle the wagons and re-run the same arguments.

For that reason, I submit that the rough consensus based upon the arguments presented is that this article should be deleted. I will of course selectivly restore references etc upon request.

brenneman 00:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We don't do this sort of article. This is essentially a WP:CFORK of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, in fact re-using some of the content there. There is a need for the sort of coverage but, it needs to be properly split up into smaller articles with a less argumentative tone and properly framed as per WP:FRINGE. Moreschi (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a fork of Ancient Egyptian race controversy – it is a spinoff which exists to allow all sides of a particular debate to be discussed neutrally, without breaking the UNDUE rule in the main article. I would have personally preferred to include this material in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, rather than create a spinoff, and indeed I have made several attempts to include it there, but the material was repeatedly deleted apparently because the “scope” of that article does not include these issues. If the “scope” of the original article specifically does not permit this debate, then what is the point of suggesting that the material be merged back into the original article????? I have included cross references so that readers will be able to get the full picture, and we can add as many more as it takes.
Certainly some of the material is duplicated, because that material is valid to this article too. However as this article is more complete, perhaps the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article should be seen as a spin-off of this article, as it has been pared down to describe only a very narrow section of the debate. Once we have got a proper article which properly presents these issues, a number of other related articles can be trimmed down and simplified.
The article has not been created to push a POV at all – the intention is to give readers all of the sides of a story which is far from cut and dried. Nor is it "partisan" – please make the effort to cite specific examples of "partisan" and I will correct them immediately. The article doesn’t take any particular viewpoint, and if you want to add more (valid) info to improve the balance then please do so. It is indeed fringe, but this has been clearly stated in the lead to the article, and each topic debated states the mainstream consensus clearly. Although the issues debated are valid I don't believe there is any danger of a reader confusing the fringe with the mainstream. However if you feel we need to be more explicit, then please add what is needed.
If you are unhappy with the tone then please modify it – this is a first draft and it certainly needs polishing. However demanding that it be split into a number of smaller articles is not appropriate – that’s exactly how we got to this point in the first place.
We could easily have had this discussion on the talk page, but somebody with a quick trigger finger jumped straight to a Deletion warning on the first pass – why? Why did that person not give the benefit of the doubt, assume good faith and make a constructive effort to first resolve whatever technical problems exist? This material has repeatedly been squashed in other articles for a variety of reasons – what is so threatening about this debate?
Wdford (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion, Mike. Please clarify what sort of userfying you require, and I'll get right on it. Please could you simultaneously lobby to have the scope of the main article broadened so that this content will be allowed in once we are all satisfied? Wdford (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about renaming the article "Theories on the Race of the Ancient Egyptians" - would that be sufficiently neutral? If not, what title would satisfy, while we wait for the scope to be opened up at [Ancient Egyptian race controversy]]? Wdford (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of that title. It's very neutral and better than the current "controversies" title. There is some precedent for the title (see [3]). •••Life of Riley (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Theories" implies the existence of a position that can be argued in a scientific and evidential way. In this case, such a position does not exist in reality, and so it would be wrong to have a title that implies that these fringe opinions deserve to be classed as proper theories. Meowy 03:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very dogmatic viewpoint - not at all neutral. There are many who believe the position can be argued in a scientific and evidential way, and this site seeks to air those various arguments. If they fail to convince then their poverty will be self-evident, but there is enough "scientific evidence" around to give the debate notability. If you believe you can prove that "such a position does not exist in reality", then please submit your evidence for consideration (with references etc, as normal).
We fully intend to merge the article into the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article as soon as possible, but meanwhile we would be interested in seeing your evidence please. Wdford (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wdforf and Mike in renaming the article into "Theories on the Race of the Ancient Egyptians". Of cause those theories do exist. There are even more scientific evidence put forward in studies for a Black Egypt than for something else Egypt. One cannot like Meowy just make dogmatic statement. Let's work in a new vision and we will see which theories lak evidence. Of cause, we are not there to judge theories, but to report them.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can make statements, dogmatic or otherwise - what I can't do is claim that those statements are "theories". A theory, in the context of an encyclopedia entry, isn't just someone's opinion, or belief. There is no mainstream scientific evidence for a "Black Egypt", so nothing exists to justify a title having the word "theories". Meowy 18:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Chris, the reason the said material has not been included in the parent article is because an editor that side feels that the parent article should only be about the history of the debate, but should exclude the debate itself. This attitude has lead to the parent article being placed on probation. The said material is actually very notable and well-sourced. This article is not about doing research, its about reporting all the existing facts (with proper references)and allowing the reader to make an informed decision of their own. Have you actually followed this issue before giving your verdict? Wdford (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have the parent page watchlisted, yes. I consider myself a good judge of how a Wikipedia article should be laid out to present an encyclopedic and neutral description of a subject, and don't consider the page in question to be an example of that. Instead, it is presented as an investigative piece which attempts to make a case to the reader. Wikipedia is not an appropriate host for such pieces. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, you look to be making an interpretation. Ideology put aside, an encyclopedic article must report the state of the research. That is what we expect from the article on the race of the ancient Egyptians. But up to now, because of an administrator mainly, Moreschi, it is impossible. So the article is lame!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restricting Statement: Some of the content can and should be merged. However, since the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy is highly disputed, other content can't be merged without a throughout discussion. See Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Zara1709 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of a “theory” is as follows:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another;
2: abstract thought – speculation;
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>;
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>;
4b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase “in theory” <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>;
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>;
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation;
6b: an unproved assumption – conjecture;
6c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>;
I don’t see anything in there about “mainstream scientific evidence” being a prerequisite, do you? In fact, the dictionary repeatedly uses words like “speculation”, and “abstract”, and “hypothetical”, and “conjecture”, and my favourite – “an unproved assumption”. Clearly, using the word “theory” in the title of this article would be more or less perfectly appropriate.

Wdford (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. Although there was substantial agreement to merge Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? into the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, it seems some people want a paragraph by paragraph referendum on such changes. As this approach is going to be tedious and time-consuming, I propose that we meanwhile build the new Ancient Egyptian race controversy article on the Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? site, move it to a new name and then polish and build consensus there before merging the fully built and agreed article into Ancient Egyptian race controversy.
On this basis I have rebuilt the Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? site. There is lots more to do. Comments and contributions please.
As the current name Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? is offending some people, would it be acceptable to move this entire process to a new site, called “Theories on the Race of the Ancient Egyptians”, or something similar, while we build agreement on the content and layout?
Wdford (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are proper theories regarding the racial origin of the ancient Egyptians and on the origin of the various dynasties that ruled ancient Egypt. And then there is this very marginal "Black Ancient Egypt" stuff. It would be incorrect to over emphasise the academic acceptance of the latter by giving it a title that implies it is part of those mainstream theories. Meowy 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


We would love to merge and move on, but the original article is now crippled, shredded and fully blocked. That's why this site exists temporarily in the first place. Wdford (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I assume, Wikiscribe, since you asserted at the Ancient Egyptian race controversy talk-page that the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article "is not a article to try and present proof of the race of the ancient egyptians", you now accept that this article is not a content fork? Wdford (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assumeing that i was stateing that the article is not suppose to be a proof article there are not suppose to be any proof articles the only note worthy thing about this is the controversy itself what legitment Encylopedia tries to make such arguements and this article is trying to fork off that article to provide proof in which certain editors are trying to do to that article its called circumventing there is a reason why the aricle changed names from the race of the ancient egyptians this article is doing the same thing, i don't how familar you are but i know been around that article for almost 2 years now off and on--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, would you then be happy to support changing the name of that article to "History of the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy", so that the content agrees with the name? Wdford (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once again, I question the neutrality of this viewpoint. We can easily change the title to something more acceptable - that can be done in seconds. The material in question was deleted (after disputes of whatever hairiness) because it was agreed (with much dissent) that the scope of the original article should be narrowed (at least that's the official reason.) This is therefore not a "counter-article" which duplicates another article with a different POV, it is the only article that carries this material and is thus "supplementary" rather than "counter". If the narrow-scope team continue to block attempts to build the other article or to merge these articles, then the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article will soon be a sub-article of this one. The creation of this article was not disruptive to anything - please explain what was disrupted (other than some attempts to suppress the material completely?) The Ancient Egyptian race controversy - where I agree this material belongs - was in the throes of an edit war based on differing ideas of scope, so moving this discussion to this article actually reduced the need for disruption at the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I also question your continued use of "POV" - please indicate examples of remaining POV so that they can be reworded. Wdford (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what Wdford said. This would be content forking if the material was removed because it was unencyclopedic. The material was removed because the scope of the article was narrowed, even though the material was acknowledged as discussing a notable viewpoint. Therefore, there should be no prejudice against reintroducing the material somewhere else. Also, we all already agreed the article badly needs to be renamed. However, I believe I now understand better where Dbachmann is coming from.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe the intent of this "article" was for interested editors to withdraw temporarily from the main article in order to best formulate the information in support of a Black Egypt with a view toward later incorporating it back into the main article, properly sourced, properly cited. It was never intended as a standalone article. I believe the difficulty here could be solved forthwith by simply making the "article" an adjunct sort of working page of the main article, leaving the involved editors free to raise certain points, debate their applicability/usefulness to the main article, make sure the information is properly sourced, and agree upon suitable language -- since this process has been stymied by, a dictatorial and threatening approach by, certainly, two administrators and the hand-off to a third and then a fourth, who precipitously locked the article for editing when, IMO, there was no need to do so. The current article has a lead which pigeonholes the entire subject into the framework of Afrocentrism -- which simply does not work. On the other hand, the lead paragraph of the working page of this "article," on the other hand, is far more suitable and reads, '"The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times. The scarcity of 'hard' evidence has served to fuel the debate. The scholarly consensus outside the field of Egyptology is that the concept of "pure race" is incoherent;[1] and that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic.[2]." From the looks of the lead, at least, seems to me the people working on this "article" have a firmer grasp of the appropriate way to approach the subject matter than those who've been riding roughshod over developments at the parent article. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And for the above reasons, I believe the article should be renamed to a less POV title and supplant the existing article at "Controversy over race of the ancient Egyptians" (or whatever the hell it's called). It definitely needs more work, but its approach is far more sound, and it shows promise. deeceevoice (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (Non-Admin Closure). FunPika 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NukeZone[edit]

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

No reliable sources establishing notability, delete as per WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Tagged with reliable sources tag since July 2008. Peephole (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: sufficient sources, but needs expansion of notability criteria. Jofakēt (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scandiposis[edit]

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

The article, about a specific phobia, does not have any references to show that it is real. A Google search shows nothing either. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above nomination was replaced by PO7skle with "I just checked on Google and this all appears to be correct. No problems" (reverted by Aka042 I thought I did it, but was pipped at the post. Peridon (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KDice[edit]

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

Non-notable web game. Only a single reliable source. Delete per WP:WEB and WP:CORP as they require multiple sources. Peephole (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

UPDATE: Changing my aforementioned "weak keep" to "keep". kdice was nominated for a techcrunch "crunchie" award, as was covered in the San Francisco Chronicle. And Channel Register cites kdice as an example of Google-related programming. SpikeJones (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:WEB requires the website to have actually won the award. Second link is yet another trivial mention. --Peephole (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:WEB says the coverage needs to be non-trivial. Which means it needs to be more than "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses". And that's pretty much what the TechCrunch and Kotaku articles are. --Peephole (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The statement - "This is a new phenomenon that merits attention", sums up the problem. Unfortunately, as was pointed out, there are no sources that establish notability and none were added during the discussion. Arguments that "this is interesting" or "I've come across this at my work" can't be counted. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durvexity[edit]

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

Just a little history to put things in context. I happened across this article a couple of weeks and dropped a more references tag on it, as well as dropping a message on the WikiProject Economics and Business talk pages. And then I admit it droppped off my radar. The term is used on the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009 and the Lehman Brothers articles and seems to have passed without comment; apprently it is "the duration of the interest-rate yield convexity curve that effectively measures the sensitivity of the price of a fixed income investment to the rate of change of the yield." Perhaps there is such a concept and perhaps it has a name, but the problem I had with the article then and now is that the one source offered does not use the term, and apart from Wiki-mirrors and blogs that quote Wikipedia articles, there seems to be no usage of the word that I can find. This AFD should have input from those more expert on the subject to be safe, and I will happily withdraw the nomination if someone can show usage in reliable sources prior to the terms appearance here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to delete. Looks like original research. Solar Apex (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It looks like a write-up based on an external source. It might not be a well-known concept, but surely that makes it all the more suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Lawdroid (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just 1 source. The concept is interesting though. Solar Apex (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps all deleted? Peridon (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). FunPika 00:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ERepublik[edit]

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

Non-notable webgame. Only a single reliable source. Delete per WP:WEB and WP:CORP as they requitre multiple sources. Peephole (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gökhan Töre[edit]

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

Non-notable youth player who has never made an appearance in a fully-pro league, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Originally PRODded for the same reason, but the PROD was removed by an IP user with no reason given. GiantSnowman 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to be honest, I doubt a 17 year old is going to play a day after signing for his new club, and saying he will is a case of crystalballing. GiantSnowman 21:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Considering he was just recently signed and the fact Chelsea have the priority to either play him or not is a consideration, it's clear people are rash and haven't given a chance to see if Chelsea play him this weekend or not. I will judge my decision on what team Chelsea put out. Govvy (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, Chelsea have said he is only going to be a member of their youth team for the time being. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC confirms that Gökhan Töre is not in the squad for today's match against Liverpool. GiantSnowman 12:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the BBC also confirms that he didn't make an appearance. GiantSnowman 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response and how does he "just about meet notability guidelines"? GiantSnowman 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to be honest, I doubt a 17 year old is going to play a day after signing for his new club, and saying he will is a case of crystalballing. He needs to actually play to meet notability guidelines, and national youth caps do not confer notability. GiantSnowman 15:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to be honest, I doubt a 17 year old is going to play a day after signing for his new club, and saying he will is a case of crystalballing. He needs to actually play to meet notability guidelines. GiantSnowman 15:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that fact that he was signed by Chelsea, one of the world's biggest club, meant that he got a mention on a few news websites, and doesn't really confer notability. GiantSnowman 18:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely an article requires not just multiple reliable sources, but multiple reliable sources covering the subject actually having done something noteworthy? Brooklyn Beckham got coverage in multiple reliable sources for being born, but we wouldn't give him an article because he hasn't actually achieved anything notable in his life, and neither has this kid - playing youth-level football and getting signed by a club which may or may not put him in their team in a year or two is not notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Icewedge (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumpa Church[edit]

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

Delete or Merge:

Weak Keep if sources are added. Jofakēt (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got a source in there, from an African religion journal. The articles claims are all still pretty hard to verify without more sources. So keep, yes, but also a message asking for more and better sources should be placed on the page until it improves.  J L G 4 1 0 4  03:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appcasting[edit]

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

This 'borderline speedy' doesn't even attempt to assert notability (seems there is none), promotes some guy and his company (both redlinks), which it also links to, and is orphaned since creation. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Skullhead[edit]

Mr. Skullhead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The character had no significant apperances, and there are no secondary sources whatsoever to assert out-of-universe notability. Besides a short OR-laden description, it's nothing but an indiscriminate list of all the "good idea/bad idea" gags on Animaniacs, which is just fan information that doesn't belong anywhere on WP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Filip Vukcevic, "Animaniacs - Volume Two: Has this classic comedy show aged well?," IGN (January 5, 2007).
  2. ^ Tyler Shainline, "Animaniacs, Vol. 1: DVD REVIEW," DVDTOWN.COM (Jul 30, 2006).
Nice one, I've changed my !vote. Also a FU pic couldn't hurt either. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of the Red Dragon[edit]

Legend of the Red Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources establishing notability, delete as per WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Tagged with notability tag since November 2008. --Peephole (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB does not apply, as LORD is not web-specific content. --Hawke666 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then. WP:CORP. --Peephole (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP:CORP applies either. This is a software product, not a company or organization. Deletition could only come from lack of general notability, WP:NOTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyMM (talk • contribs) 10:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Lee[edit]

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

I came across this as a "Random article" and set about improving it. However, I suspect that this actually a completely non-notable guitarist who is a member of completely non-notable band (Wiki red link) who has a completely non-notable girlfriend (also a Wiki red link). Google search provides nothing other than Wikipedia and a link to Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Regendi[edit]

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

This is evidently a "political browser-based game and economic simulation" (based on the article), and the question is whether it currently meets notability guidelines. This article was previously deleted at AfD in January 2008 for lack of sourcing to verify notability. It has since been created several times and speedily deleted under this name and the similar Ars regendi. Additional sourcing is now present which may invite reassessment, making it ineligible for deletion under WP:CSD#G4 (for which it was tagged). This nomination is procedural, as I have no basis to judge the German sources in terms of reliability. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Valenti[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability (people) advises that a person meets the notability threshold if she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of her. I'm not sure that Valenti is the subject of any of the cited sources in this article. There are reviews of her book (and a Q&A with her qua the book's author), the subject of which is the book, not its author. There are articles written by her, but while wags might suggest she is their subject, they are not intellectually independent. That seems to leave WP:CREATIVE, and so far as I can see, none of its tests appear to be met either. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't googling a name without quotation marks overinclusive, producing get hits that include just "Jessica" and just "Valenti," or the two used independently of one another? Googling with quotation marks around the name brings back only 49,000 results ([10]). Could you link to the Guardian article you found? I see columns that she's written for the Grauniad, but not a column about her.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's this one: [11]. I think it's essentially about her (in the sense that it's about her book and her world view). This may make me a "wag".  :-)--S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the byline. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I acknowledged that above. I think it's by her and essentially about her.  :-) --S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) -- (later) -- I should clarify that, I think. What's interesting to me is that the Guardian has given her voice on something other than the letters page.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I missed the note in your comment abouve about it having been self-penned. Apologies.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also confused as to why an author shouldn't talk about their own work. Your job is a big part of your life, y'know? If I were being interviewed by somebody, we'd probably spend a fair bit of time on my career... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused, also. Who said she couldn't talk about her work? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's sufficient media coverage within the scope of WP:BIO, then fair enough - I do just want to address the point that because Feministing is notable (I assume that it is), that's an argument against this nomination, though. One of the biggest blogs on the right is RedState, but that doesn't bootstrap its founders and principals Erick Erickson or Mike Krempasky into being independently notable. Similarly, Protein Wisdom is notable enough to be included, but its equivalent to Valenti, Jeff Goldstein isn't (that link is a redirect to the PW article), and for a somewhat amusing demonstration that the knife cuts both ways, cf. Atrios (blogger is notable) with Eschaton (his blog is not independently notable). Is contributing to something that is notable usually thought an independent basis for notability? Certainly she may have done other things to establish notability, and I don't doubt your word on the point, but I don't buy that simply founding and writing for a blog by itself meets the notability threshold.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valenti's career has been more of a boon to Feministing than the other way around - the blog didn't even have a page until a few days ago (I created it). I actually had a difficult time finding articles that talked about Feministing as much as Valenti. She's published a few different books that have been well-covered by the media.
Have you looked at my new references? I include links to articles on her and her work from the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and Gothamist. I think they do a great deal to establish that she (and her work independent of Feministing as much as with the blog) are notable. The article has six independent sources (NYT, Huffington Post, Colbert Report, Salon, AlterNet, NYMag) that significantly cover both her and her work directly and in detail.
I'm a little wary of your arguments regarding other blog editors, but I see where you're coming from. However, with Protein Wisdom, Goldstein does not contribute as widely as Valenti. Valenti's status at Feministing is part of a collaborative effort, and Valenti has a great deal of other contributions: books, articles and media appearances. I think that a better analogy is Ana Marie Cox. Cox was also the founding editor of a widely known blog,[ Wonkette, who grew from her success there to further notable projects. RMJ (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger 60's rock band[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hunger 60's rock band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Well, it says that the only viable source is myspace. Dunno. Elm-39 - T/C 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything in the article that passes WP:MUSIC; their only credits seem through supporting other bands (WP:NOTINHERITED). If the article is to be believed, I'm sure this band must have had some coverage. Cycle~ (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FunPika 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Gemological Institute[edit]

International Gemological Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is heavy on POV, opinions, and forward looking statements that are not encyclopedic. Smells like advert. Emana (Talk) 17:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yaki Kadafi[edit]

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

Unimportant individual; barely even an article, no reliable sources, and overall fails WP:MUSIC. Just because he was a member of Outlawz for a short time it does not mean he is notable. There really is no significance of notability here. Period. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to contribute to this discussion; but wanted to say that I find it hard to believe that Kadafi's wiki entry is being considered for deletion: a very popular rapper who worked extensively alongside one of the greatest rappers who ever lived; and who was one of the sole witnesses in the murder of that rapper; and who then went on to die in mysterious circumstances himself two months to the day later???

Yaki Kadafi a member of the outlawz and a close friend of Tupac and a founding member of the outlawz. And his wiki entry is pending deletion? If it's gonna be like that then you can take 80% of the pointless entries on Wikipedia. I believe Yaki Kadafi has a rightful place on Wikipedia and he has contributed alot to some of Tupacs work. People would like to know more information of Tupacs close friend & founding member of the Outlawz. Its unbelievable that this is even considered to be debated. As said above people would like to know more about Yaki Kadafi and what relationship he had with 2pac.

Strange person to cite as not notable enough - this entry should certainly NOT be deleted.--AthenaM (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (and therefore keep) (non-admin closure) 88.234.217.196 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jape (software)[edit]

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

A nonnotable piece of software tagged so for over year now, but the content basically unchanged since its creation in 2006. - 7-bubёn >t 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S Gundam[edit]

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

No third-party references or apparent notability evident from the article. Another member of the very large Gundam walled garden. Most of the content appears to be original research. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motor maintenance[edit]

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Automobile repair
Motor maintenance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment Note that this refers to pages in the Wikipedia namespace, not the article namespace. The creation of howto pages that tell people how to do things in wikipedia, in the wikipedia namespace is allowed. The creation of howto articles in the article space isn't. Mayalld (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ah yes. I see what you're talking about. Thanks for the reply! Antivenin 16:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gillespie Godfrey Boyd[edit]

Gillespie Godfrey Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hagiographical article about someone's relative who served in WWII. Sounds like a good guy but he does not seem to have been unusually distinguished. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N and there are also COI issues andy (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Glenn Holt[edit]

Daniel Glenn Holt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jobs in Nigeria[edit]

Jobs in Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, WP:ESSAY, likely WP:OR CultureDrone (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by DGG - procedural close. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Atrocities[edit]

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

This article seems to exist only as an attack. Can it be speedied? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G10: Attack Page. Also fails WP:NPOV.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. In principle, I agree with S Marshall that an article can gather together under one roof several events that, by themselves, are notable, NPOV, and non-attacking, and yet, by their selection and assembly, create an article amounting to an attack page for purposes of WP:CSD 10 (or a WP:SYN violation). Such constructions are not necessarily so, however; for example, there is also a page German atrocities, redirecting to German war crimes. I have no idea which side of the line the nom'd article falls, frankly, and at the risk of making a WP:WAX faux pas, is there a difference between this article and that article other than the POV problems with the nominated article? If not, I would think the remedy would ordinarily be improvement rather than deletion.
On the other hand, WP:ATP directs that "[i]f the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place." There isn't a good version to revert to, but I can't imagine what a stub would say - "Poland has done some bad things in the past"? - so that solution isn't a perfect fit, either.
All told, I think the best remedy is that the content be merged into History of Poland - the editors of which are better-placed than I am to evaluate its accuracy, balance, and weighting - and/or the nom'd article be redirected thereto. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--my concern is to avoid giving offence, so if Simon Dodd's suggestion is followed, I would recommend the article in question be userfied or otherwise blanked from the main Wikipedia space while the merge is in progress.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GbT/c 09:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Roxanne[edit]

Nina Roxanne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • This should probably be deleted, but you can't snowball close something after only two responses at the AFD. Keep your pants on, yo. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sucden[edit]

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

Article about non-notable company with no third-party reference sources since July 2008, failing to satisfy the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --DAJF (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

E-creativity[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism seemingly coined by the article author. The conference mentioned is also organised by the author. Prod tried and removed by author. Blowdart | talk 15:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AUTHOR COMMENT: I think "creative things to do with the internet" (above) falls very comfortably into the catchall definition that I have proposed, thereby only strengthening my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankarbaba (talk • contribs) 04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - More important than its extreme nebulousness is the word's complete lack of secondary usage. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emotions Education[edit]

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

More unencyclopaedic self-promotion from the editor who brought us Crime Education(AfD) and Spiritual Education‎(AfD). Only non-self-source doesn't even mention the term. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Servers[edit]

Delete not notable! (nominated 14:39, 29 January 2009 by User:Elfzombie, listed at afd by 13:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dou (Alexandra Burke)[edit]

Dou (Alexandra Burke) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this is purportedly about a second album, before the first is released. WP:CRYSTAL applies. AndrewHowse (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have renamed and rewritten the article according to the good suggestions below. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cgk733[edit]

Cgk733 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article describes scientific work that has been revealed to be fraudulent. The paper this article is based upon, titled "Small molecule–based reversible reprogramming of cellular lifespan", has been retracted in full by the authors. The authors were suspended from the academic institution where they worked. The only accurate statement currently in the article is "the entire work behind the discovery of this compound was called into question and then found to be falsified." Perhaps there is an article to be written about the fraud itself, but this article about the non-existent chemical compound "Cgk733" should be deleted.-- Ed (Edgar181) 13:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Buss[edit]

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

Spammy piece about a non-notable financial advisor. Only 88 ghits none of which are particularly exciting, no evidence of notability in the article and totally irrelevant references - nothing to support a claim of notability. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:VER andy (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G1 Pedro :  Chat  14:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo hancock[edit]

Buffalo hancock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Education[edit]

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

non encyclopaedic self promotion TeapotgeorgeTalk 12:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of complaining improve the srticle - that is if you can? It seems all your contributions are knocking down those who want to make a genuine contriubution. Bill robb (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Education[edit]

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

Non encyclopaedic self promotion TeapotgeorgeTalk 12:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A legitimate begining to an entry which wil get better with other contributions. Bill robb (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky Pop[edit]

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

To quote the PROD that didn't make 5 days: "a pointless, not commonly used genre name that does not need its own article even if it does exist. A few articles and such about it but they're mostly about specific club nights. No evidence this has any chance of becoming a common or in any way useful term." I couldn't agree more. Delete.    SIS  12:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there seems to be more of a desire to rewrite the article as music genre then a lifestyle more then a desire to delete article. I will rewrite it as a music genre only. Also if article is to stay editing needs to be limited to users as there has been continuous vandalism. Edkollin (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In trying to revert the massive vandalism it is possible I deleted legitimate edits by users. Apologies ahead of time. Feel free to renter edits. Edkollin (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted CSD G3 hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerpuff Girls (arcade game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Powerpuff Girls (arcade game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yeah, it is a poorly written example of an article what with all the weasel terms but it isn't wrong in it having any sources to suggest it even exists. Not much has changed since the last nom for the article back in 2005 so fail on WP:V, WP:N and a couple others. treelo radda 11:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing of any real use in this article, it basically says that no-one knows who made it, when it was made, or if it even ever existed. La Kiwi 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcollis (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5th Studio Album[edit]

5th Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
"verification in multiple, reliable, independant sources" is only needed when you want to establish notability for something. A single fact can easily be referenced with a single source (in this case in context) +_ Mgm|(talk) 12:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, apologies for not making myself clearer. To make it specific, I want to establish notability for this album per Wikipedia:Notability, through the use of verified content taken from multiple, reliable, independant sources as per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. As this has not happened, and is unlikely to happen in the near future due to the in-development status of the album, the article should be deleted until these sources exist from which notability for this album can be established. -- saberwyn 02:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Robertson snp[edit]

Dennis Robertson snp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography of an SNP candidate, who has contested one election to the Scottish Parliament, coming second. Does not represent a neutral point of view. Unelected candidates are not usually considered inherently notable, as per the notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN, and no other claim of notability is presented. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Java syntax[edit]

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

Article has been transwikied to b:Java Programming/Syntax; this is purely manual-style content which does not provide descriptive, real-world value beyond that which is addressed in the Java (programming language) article. Was PRODded only to be contested on procedural grounds due to the same thing happening three years ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even if none of the existing content is salvageable, I think the proper remedy in this case is re-writing rather than deletion. I realise you disagree but I think policy is on my side here.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the AfD was to confirm that consensus is that the content, throughout its history, is not worth keeping. If it's kept it'll be stubbed, thus removing any point in keeping it in the first place. I fail to see what the value is in continuing to drag a useless revision history around in that case. The rot set in in the third revision of the article, and it's never gone anywhere positive since. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Niyonsaba[edit]

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

Footballer has not played senior international, olympic or fully professional match, generally accepted as minimum criteria for notability of Association football players per WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYNClubOranjeTalk 10:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miscarriage of justice cases[edit]

Miscarriage of justice cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List with no possible NPOV criteria for entry. Shadowjams (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all cases sourced, official recognition of judicial errors, no POV pushing. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If it is to be kept, I think it's better as a separate list. Shadowjams (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nothing wrong with that title, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the existing one, either. 'Miscarriage of justice' the usual term of art (or it may even be strictly defined; I'm not sure) for this class of event. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd even prefer Cases of miscarriage of justice, it just sounds less clunky to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the title is one of the central problems (discussed below). Shadowjams (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title gives the wrong impression - The title suggests a much broader set of criteria than the criteria given in the parent article. The name suggests and the parent article mentions non-criminal cases that can also be lumped under the topic. I cannot agree with AlexTiefling's confidence that the criteria for inclusion will fix the misconception given by a much broader title. Both the parent and the definition given here make no requirement that the conviction actually be overturned or judged on legally.
  • Absence of official ruling requirement leads to subjectivity - While a wrongful conviction is an easy include, much harder are the issues involved in pleas and technical errors. Defenses to crimes, like self-defense, create issues because it will require wikipedia editors to make a subjective legal judgment on an issue, particularly when the court has not formally exonerated the individual. (example)
  • Choosing criteria will involve devisive choices - Despite the exasperation, it is a real concern that choosing a criteria will be hard to do neutrally. Of course I don't suggest that someone cannot come up with a criteria that is fair or in good faith, but even the good ones given now bring up these issues and I don't think they've been resolved. Shadowjams (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shadowjams, I don't want to be a grammar Nzi here, but your above contribution is so badly written as to suggest willful obfuscation.
Could you kindly re-state your views, in an easily understood idiom? Thanks. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this response is a joke. Otherwise I resent the suggestion I'm hiding the ball. Read my bullet points alone and it explains my objections. Maybe it would be better as a list of WP:....Shadowjams (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: All the entries in the list are cases where people had been convicted and then the sentence was overturned and the person no longer faces the charges. E.g., if a high court overturns a sentence but then orders a retrial, then that does not count as a miscarriage. Only if the person is cleared in the retrial can such a case be included in the list. An example would be the case of Alan Beaman (included in the list as the first US entry of the year 2009). His sentence was overturned in 2008 and the case was sent back for retrial. The prosecutor initially did not drop the charges. A few days ago the prosecutor did drop the charges, so his case now counts as a miscarriage.
This criterium that we've been sticking to is thus biased because we don't include people who are very likely wrongfully convicted but are still in jail, no matter how strong the evidence for wrongful conviction is. Count Iblis (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is why miscarriage of justice is a problematic name for the article; because a miscarriage of justice can happen in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, where the reputedly wrong decision is made. Many people think that O. J. Simpson's acquittal for murder was a "miscarriage of justice", and I'm sure that published sources can be found that call it that, but it isn't on the list. The list seems to contain only people who were convicted of crimes and later exonerated. That list has clear criteria for inclusion: but while "miscarriage of justice" may well describe such cases, it isn't specific enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment List should be added to the name. Other names might be better. Maybe "List of wrongful convictions", or "List of overturned wrongful convictions". Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this debate has been a good one, and I appreciate everyone's sincerity. These are real issues that need to be decided, and this would be a good opportunity to do so. I believe that the issues I've just described are potentially fatal. Deciding any one of them either way will be controversial, and if it doesn't appear like that now, just wait until someone wants to put a close case on the list. If the list is to stay, these criteria need to be thoroughly understood now in advance. Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Face Lift[edit]

The Face Lift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although there is a category for professional wresting moves, this seems to be one move invented and used by one wrestler, and would therefore seem to fail general notability CultureDrone (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Idol (season 6). MBisanz talk 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance Head[edit]

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

I think we've reached the point where Sundance isn't notable enough to have an article. We have a long standing guideline that states that only finalists should have articles. Well Sundance was eliminated just before the finals. For awhile, this was ok because he had signed a major record deal. But apparently that was just for a duet single with Sabrina Sloan. His official myspace page says that he's unsigned and there is no evidence that that isn't true. So I think it's time to redirect the article to American Idol (season 6) just like Sabrina Sloan's is. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riskay[edit]

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

Delete. This is just another MySpace act which has received minor coverage as a result of a tasteless song title and little more. JBsupreme (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

I came here to find out abourt Riskay. Where is the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.164.238 (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Huynh[edit]

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

The article is unsourced, despite the fact that it claims Kevin Huynh is an accomplished drifter. A google search reveals only blogs, profile websites and an unrelated realtor with the same name. A more specific search on drifting websites still yields no reliable sources. As such, subject seems to fail WP:BIO. Atlan (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life: Absolute Redemption[edit]

Half-Life: Absolute Redemption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is about an unofficial mod that fails verifiability and notability as well as being sourced only be unreliable sources.じんない 08:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreeMind[edit]

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

Non-notable, no sources Boatsdesk (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Boatsdesk is a new editor. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't illegal to be a new user. We all started there. Remember, please do not bite the newcomers. Ikluft (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inclusion criteria for stubs are no different from the inclusion criteria for our longest articles. I would advise DarTar to become familiar with Wikipedia guidelines before trying to lecture other people on them. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shouldn't have to repeat this. Please do not bite the newcomers. It at least carries the appearance of being unfriendly to point at new editors like that. If someone makes a mistake and you notice they're new, offer help. If they persist, then deal with it on a case-by-case basis. But don't pick on someone who has only expressed an opinion (opposing yours, I should add!) for being new. New editors are not excluded from AfD discussion by any policy. I urge the closing editor not to consider disparaging remarks against new editors because it's simply contrary to WP guidelines to do that, and it isn't nice. Ikluft (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is biting the newcomers here. Please follow WP:NPA and stick to the topic at hand. Identifying new editors in an AfD is standard procedure. Attacking editors because you don't like this procedure is disruptive to this AfD. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No attack intended. My concern remains unanswered. Please keep it to the point - which policy or guideline is behind that "standard procedure" of calling out new editors? That would be the only convincing argument that it isn't biting them. After all, that's the first line at WP:AfD#AfD_Wikietiquette. Ikluft (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better to take WP:BITE accusations to the editor's talk page, than violate WP:NPA by bringing it up here. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll repeat the question since it's still unanswered. Which policy or guideline is behind that "standard procedure" of calling out new editors? Ikluft (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there isn't an answer to that (which is apparently the case) then I'd advise reconsidering whoever's example made that appear "standard". It was a bad example that shouldn't be followed. It can reasonably be expected that calling out new editors will be taken personally by those subjected to it in any AfD discussion. Ikluft (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry too much that the AfD nomination was made. AfD discussions are about consensus over whether Wikipedia policies and guidelines support deletion of the article, not a straight-up vote. The closing admin will look at whether consensus was reached and who made the most convincing policy-related statements. This one appears to be on course to survive. Thanks for the references. I added the MacWorld ref to the article due to your submission. The Innovation Tools ref was already in the article. The LinuxMag ref requires a login so I skipped it. (I had found that in my search too.) The #4 and #5 refs look like blogs, which aren't good enough to be reliable sources so I had to skip those. So one new reliable source (MacWorld) is still quite helpful. I also added an additional reference from a Fox Business News article. So this article has risen well above any claim of being unsourced. Ikluft (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrado Malanga[edit]

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

Subject fails the relevant notability criteria, specifically WP:BIO and WP:PROF. I have looked for independent, reliable, English-language sources that would establish notability, and found none. Yilloslime (t) 06:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 5x as many Ghits if you don't filter out non-English sources. Looking at the first few pages of results, none of them look any more reliable or independent than the English sources, but I don't speak Italian so I can't be 100% sure. And while I agree that the sources don't have to be in English, as this is en.wiki, English sources would be preferable. And what's notable and relevant to one audience (say Italians) isn't necessarily notable and relevant to another (say English speakers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs)
According to WP:PROF, simply having published papers in well respected journals is does [not] establish sufficient notability for inclusion. If that were the standard, just about every single chemist with a PhD would be worthy of inclusion. And while interesting, there is no criterion by which to judge the number of cites certain papers of his get--It may be that 70 other chemist thought his one paper was important enough to cite, or it may be that he's cited that paper in every subsequent paper he's written. Many researchers always cite their previous work, thereby inflating there citation count. And on how many of those 54 papers--and 54 papers isn't really all that many for an academic chemist; and Tet Lett is not the paragon of synthesis journals--on how many of those papers was he the first author or the corresponding author? We don't know, and that's why number of papers published and number of citations to those papers is not a criteria in WP:PROF. Yilloslime (t) 17:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted "not" in your comment above, which I think was your intention. yes, it's not just having papers, but the number of papers, where they are published, how much they are cited, and who cites them. This is the way the influence and importance of a scientist is measured. The only question is whether in this particular field of chemistry this is borderline or not. As he only wrote 51 papers, there is no possible way for him to have cited one of them in 70 papers. But, just to set this at rest, i went back to Web of Science and found that only 3 of them seem to be. For an example in a similar field where I think the number of publications and citation mights be marginal , see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Hooper. DGG (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am Italian and here in Italy there is a violent argument "firestorming" on Corrado Malanga. What you wrote above is more or less correct. I would just underline that he is the "supremo" researcher in alien abduction. I mean world leader. Unfortunately he wrote almost all of his works on alien interferences in Italian.
As far as I know he is the only researcher in the phenomenon who was able not only to propose an explanation of it, but also to propound a "cure" (the SIMBAD) performed simply via meditation: the SIMBAD is just a sort of "scientific" self-induced exorcism for the alleged abductees, and for the other (not-abducted) people is only a meditation "methodology".
He succeded where John Mack failed, that's the important thing about his ufologic study.
Moreover he established a "canon" of the most common alien races that the alleged abductees describe, and he developed a classification of these alleged alien interferences.
Therefore for the first time there is a wide study on the phenomenon that answers these questions:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Agdam skirmish[edit]

2009 Agdam skirmish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As per [[26]], which was deleted earlier. Neophyteinc (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nanna's Cottage. Deleting under redirect per Copyvio. MBisanz talk 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Sunday School[edit]

Monster Sunday School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: extremely short & short-lived (entire production run appears to have consisted of only 108 min of programming) and largely unnoticed Christian television program. No relevant GoogleBooks hits, no reliable GoogleNews or Google hits. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... I am ProDding Nanna's Cottage - equally NN! Springnuts (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "largely unnoticed" of course means by reliable third party sources -- the benchmark for judging notability. It is not "definitely subjective". Even were the standard instead viewership, it is unlikely that "the United States's largest Christian network and several other networks" would compete with the major networks (let alone including their programs greater international viewership). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Religious networks often don't even consider mainstream networks at all as competition. They try to attract mainstream audiences for their shows, but I can pretty much say with certainty TBN doesn't care what is 'hot' on either Nick, Cartoon Network, or CW4Kids; they have a remit to serve the needs of their religious mission and raise donations to spread their ministry to stay on the air. Because of this, they don't get the coverage that most networks do. Thus notability is a tough nut to crack, and we have fewer sources to vet as a consequence. But they can be found. Nate • (chatter) 11:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't "a tough nut to crack" -- notability is largely equivalent to third party coverage. No coverage = no notability, no matter how 'worthy' individual editors might consider the topic to be. And I would remind you that it was you who introduced the comparison to mainstream shows, not myself. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not -- the "enwiki" in the URL would appear to indicate that that page is the copy. However, as with all uncited material in multiple locations, it is hard (without careful examination of edit & wayback histories) to determine which is a copy of which. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asia-Pacific Peace Research Association (APPRA)[edit]

Asia-Pacific Peace Research Association (APPRA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Organization is non notable and possible COI from editor. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manish Thapa for more information. Shadowjams (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Earth[edit]

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

Delete: Obscure WP:FRINGE magazine. Magazine title is sufficiently generic that it generates large numbers of unrelated search hits, but no immediately-apparent RSes. Parent organisation is 'Northern Earth Mysteries Group', which search-results in a small number of books (roughly 50/50 books published by the group and bare citations) and no news hits. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer: nothing reliable, and certainly nothing reliable and third-party that provides significant coverage (either individually or collectively).
  • Yeah, after I'm not getting a lot. I suspect if the article was reworked extensively so as to focus on the Northern Earth Mysteries group as an organisation and publisher it might fare better, however even there I'm having trouble coming up with decent links from unambiguously fringey sources - we can verify they exist[28] and that they publish things[29][30] but it's not really enough to establish notablity. Irritatingly theres a news archive site that has what looks to be some good refs[31] but they are tantalisingly out of reach behind a paywall. Artw (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009-10 Milwaukee Panthers men's basketball team[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2009-10 Milwaukee Panthers men's basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced future team season. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The roster and coaching staff are speculation at this point since a lot can happen between now and the next season. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adam Bagni, merge secondary articles into it. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bagni[edit]

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

Lack of Notability. His sources are his own television station, and minor blips on local new sites. Only notable characteristic is holding the Guinness World Record for Longest Radio Quiz. The source notes that they were attempting getting the record, but there is no record of him actually officially getting it (according to a source at the university, they followed all the procedures, but never submitted the paperwork). Numerous people have removed this "fact", and had their change reverted as vandalism. I previously proposed deletion, which was also reverted as vandalism. Joe CoT (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are for minor TV shows that this person is involved in, which are also not notable:

Inside_the_Tide_and_the_Tigers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joe CoT (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AUM_Sports_Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joe CoT (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A group AfD is always difficult because each article must now be judged on its indivual merits. I will trust the closing admin to sort it all out. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is "second nomination" listed above twice? The first was way back in 2005. The second in 2006. This one, 3 years later should be 3rd. Yes? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In agreement that his intern stuff can/should be moved lower. Just haven't figured out where to best fit in in yet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Lamar[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:BIO as well as WP:ENTERTAINER. No reliable sources are available to attest to notability. I tagged the article two weeks ago asking for reliable sources, and none were added. I went searching on my own (Gale and ProQuest) and found no significant interviews, only a few quotes, some photographs, and some mentions in the Village Voice about her party promoting. Although she has appeared in a few films in the last few years, she has not had "significant roles in multiple notable films". Although the article is three years old, I believe it doesn't meet today's stricter standards for notability. The article right now just seems to serve as a vanity page for Sophia Lamar, one that she might have started and/or tried to maintain herself. cswpride (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coter[edit]

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

This constructed language does not attempt to establish notability and was created by a small group of people on Second Life. It's not even on the conlang Wikia. Theymos (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Baxter Utley[edit]

Kyle Baxter Utley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article, alludes to notability by association, but not notable in own right. MBisanz talk 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Electronic billing. MBisanz talk 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EBillMe[edit]

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

No refs, no notability (asserted or otherwise). flaminglawyer 02:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new to really editing Wikipedia, but I'm trying to do my honest best. This is NOT advertising any more than any page on any business. Now, I think it might be good to have some general page that describes the type of service this is, and lists eBillMe as one provider. Fact is, objective information about this type of service is valid. It is not simply Electronic Billing, because it doesn't actually work like that, but rather uses that system in order to function, but it is a different service. I don't know that ebillme should be a unique wikipedia page, but it SHOULD be listed and explained somewhere on wikipedia. Objective comparison of its functions versus Paypal or Google Checkout or others is valid. Those other services are discussed here at wikipedia. eBillMe is unique in its operation. I first found out about it when using a site that offered it and I came to wikipedia hoping to find more information. I admit the initial article was not ideal, but my hope was that it would just be a start and eventually an article up to wikipedia's standards would be developed. --Backfromquadrangle (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heavy Heavy Low Low. MBisanz talk 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's Watched, Everyone's Watching[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Everything's Watched, Everyone's Watching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:19, 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, MBisanz talk 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heavy Heavy Low Low. MBisanz talk 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Kids Kids[edit]

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

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:14, 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, MBisanz talk 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawodu[edit]

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

Maybe the article on the surname should remain, but I'm not even sure of that. The list of names appears non-notable. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 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 00:53, 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, MBisanz talk 03:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Uncle G. It looks like this should be a disambig page, but I'm still new and not sure how to do that. I would recommend (not knowing the technical term): turn into disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlg4104 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawodu is a popular Nigerian surname that is derived from its different Arabic versions like DAWOOD, DAUD,etc, all meaning first son or David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.155.175 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRU Youth Leagues: Blues Region[edit]

WRU Youth Leagues: Blues Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable youth league. Not fully professional. No sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V Nouse4aname (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Blues are a major club so I feel this article is notable although there is a lack of encyclopaedic information. It just needs to be expanded. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has nothing to do with the Blues, it just refers to a league consisting of youth teams in their region. Note that notability is not inherited and that youth teams are not fully professional and thus do not generally satisfy notability criteria. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:23, 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 00:42, 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, MBisanz talk 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thug Ride. MBisanz talk 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dozia Slim[edit]

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

Not only is this a very short article with little context, it also fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Moreover, the only Google hits I could find lead to YouTube, message boards, and unsourced wikis. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:17, 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 00:48, 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, MBisanz talk 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Hooper[edit]

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

Malcolm Hooper does not have the notability by WP:PROF, he is retired professor without notable accomplishment in biochemistry. There is a few Malcolm Hoopers in Google News like a cricket player and a member of fascist party from 1930s. This Malcolm Hooper is most known as lay activist for chronic fatigue syndrome but there is not reliable sources and he is not a recognized expert. I do not find sources about him, but some do mention him but I do not think it is significant. RetroS1mone talk 03:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note, Hoooper does not have notability in WP:PROF, he can have notability in general bio guidelines. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" The guardian piece in the article is primary, by Hoooper it is not about Hooper so not independent. The articles N p holmes says about are primary sources. Do you get notability by your name mentioned in a few primary sources, i do not know but i do not think so, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". RetroS1mone talk 13:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some confusion here: the articles I am citing here are what most people would call secondary sources. The first at least is not just a mention – it discusses Hooper at length. N p holmes (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Government: NationStates[edit]

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

This game has no assertion of notability, and, as the article stands right now, it doesn't appear to meet the notability standards. If you look at the references, they're all simply from the website, therefore, they don't meet the standards of WP:ReliableSources. EDIT: I see that it was kept last time, but there are still no reliable sources or claims to notability. If it's kept, the article needs verifiable references. hmwithτ 03:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles City Attorney Election, 2009[edit]

Los Angeles City Attorney Election, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subtle, yet blatant attempt by a Weiss staffer to get his name out there to voters ahead of the rest of the pack. In that sense, especially since it was obviously created by someone affiliated with Weiss, this violates WP:ADS. Actually, this article should be speedy deleted under CSD G11. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Millander[edit]

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

Non-notable character in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Was a corrupt judge who only made three appearances on the show--not enough to make him a minor or recurring character in my opinion. No third party sources, no reason to believe he's any more notable than any other murderer from any other episode. Redfarmer (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claire's Unnatural Twin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Claire's Unnatural Twin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A band that fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. 2 albums on a small, non-notable label (possibly self released). Searching pulls up nothing of of substance. Of the references in the article, one is a dead link and searching shows the band isn't mentioned in the other. While the previous AfD was no consensus back in Nov 2005, the criteria for notability has come a long way since then.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable and unsourced. Jofakēt (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 via CSD A7. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 03:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punching mercury[edit]

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

Willydick (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you've gotta be kidding!!! half the stuff on here is crap that no one even cares about, so why not let me add to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colortunumba (talk • contribs) 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Userfied before deletion. MBisanz talk 02:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

911 Missing Links[edit]

Absolutely do NOT delete this entry. Whether you agree or disagree, this entry relates to a valid topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.26.165 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

911 Missing Links (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable conspiracy google video. Blatant spam but admin refused speedy delete. Peephole (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Phaser901, the original author of the Wikipedia article in question. It most certainly is not "blatant spam". The article is intended as information and summary on a significant 911 conspiracy-related documentary. Please detail to me how I should move this article from "spam-grade" to acceptable? What sentences in particular are problematic? I have outlined the subjects discussed in the film. They can easily be confirmed by watching the content of the film. Also note that it is not a Google Video release, the primary dissemination is through the official website. This is similar to other popular Internet releases such as Zeitgeist; GV just happens to be popular for viewing. Also it is not "non-notable" as it discusses topics both inside and outside the scope of current 9/11 conspiracy research. There is little "retreading on old ground" as is found on many Loose-Change like releases. Phaser501 (talk)

Delete: non-notable and reads like a news release. Jofakēt (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided for this article are worthless; two are simply links to the video itself, and two are links to blogs. None of them provide any form of noteability and they all fail the sourcing guidelines. Jtrainor (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please WP:USERFY this back to User:Phaser501/sandbox/911 Missing Links. It may yet gain sourcing that meets wiki's standards and he might bring it back then. No need to chase of a contributor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : non-notable. Locewtus (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra Speedy Delete This has no place on an encyclopaedia. Yossiea (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Web directory. MBisanz talk 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blog directory[edit]

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

Article appears to be pure OR. Tagged as needing references for over six months with no real improvement. Jonobennett (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAB Fight Song[edit]

UAB Fight Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
SDSU Fight Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Articles consist only of the lyrics of songs apparently hollered at sporting events, though they don't even say which sport. I'm assuming basketball. I'm sure lyrics of songs don't belong on Wikipedia? roleplayer 00:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtside Seats[edit]

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

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:15, 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 00:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heavy Heavy Low Low. MBisanz talk 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Heavy Low Low EP[edit]

Heavy Heavy Low Low EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:16, 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 00:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle Nipple and the Toxic Shock[edit]

Turtle Nipple and the Toxic Shock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:16, 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 00:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lingolook[edit]

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

In my vision, it appears to be a non-notable product. The article was previously deleted as spam; Google brings up over 800 results of "Lingolook Flashcards". I didn't see any news articles about this product, or any source that makes this article pass inclusion. I wasn't sure if this was actually notable enough, so I'm taking this to AfD. SF3 (talk!) 03:10, 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 00:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jak and Daxter (series)#Future of the Jak and Daxter series. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 11:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jak and Daxter IV: The Lost Frontier[edit]

Jak and Daxter IV: The Lost Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We know of this game solely through a nearly three year old patent of a title. Nothing more. Naughty Dog has not released any posters of the game, and certainly not through Jak 3 concept art. What this article refers to is known as fan art. Fake trailers aren't proof either. They're, unfortunately for the cause, fake, and certainly have no business being on Wikipedia. This game has no proposed release date. 12/31/09 is simply a placeholder date used by gaming websites. HQ (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JessiKa Violet[edit]

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

I can't find any secondary source coverage for this model - nothing in gnews (except for a mention that may not be her, and has zero to do with modeling), or anything that shows up in ghits that indicates she is in any way notable according to WP:BIO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:31, 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 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Chapman (actor)[edit]

John Chapman (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Having an uncredited role in Star Wars and producing a music video for Christopher Lee (the horror! the horror!) does not satisfy notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 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 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Nieto (martial artist)[edit]

Rafael Nieto (martial artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Six trivial mentions in Google News. Claim to fame is creation of Zen-Do, a non-notable form of karate that appears to be taught solely by Nieto. (When searching, do not confuse with Zen Do Kai.) Unreferenced stub tagged since 9/2007 w/o improvement. THF (talk) 13:51, 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 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liana White[edit]

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

Nothing to distuinguish this from many other murders; while tragic and shocking Wikipedia is WP:NOT a WP:MEMORIAL. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 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 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gliceas[edit]

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

Unnotable Neoglism coined by a couple of students. DFS454 (talk) 17:38, 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 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BEST HYDRAULIC SECTION[edit]

BEST HYDRAULIC SECTION (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be either an instructional guide/manual or textbook-type material (sole purpose is to teach a method for doing something). Falls under Wikipedia is NOT a textbook/guide/manual. Declined prod, reasoning was "this is a mathematical procedure for solving a legitimate engineering problem," which is exactly what guides/manuals/textbooks do and not what you should have in an encyclopedia. Cquan (after the beep...) 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My guess is that it's hand-copied from the cited source. Even one of the technical names (Chezy) is mis-spelled. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement. MBisanz talk 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manzoor Hussain Parwana[edit]

Manzoor Hussain Parwana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

COI (author is subject), vanity fluff piece for self-author of dubious notability, attack piece against other parties Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:46, 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, Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:02, 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 00:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Baltimore (MARC station). MBisanz talk 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Seeley[edit]

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

Man with gun arrested; news articles don't even mention assassination. Minor news item for the day, no lasting coverage, fails WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS. Only an incidental relation to West Baltimore (MARC station), so merge is not appropriate. Contested prod. Jfire (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But with the passage of time, it became clear that this was simply a man with a gun who got arrested. There was no assassination plot, there was no "proclamation" as West Baltimore (MARC station) currently claims without source (a WP:BLP violation). It was just an arrest which happened to occur at the station. Arrests happen every day in thousands of locations; we don't mention every one in the articles on their locations. Jfire (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you watched the televised local news that day (which I did), they portrayed it as an assassination attempt. They also described that trains on the line were stopped as a result of this incident, and interviewed the cab driver involved and other witnesses who stood on the platform and called 911. Sebwite (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as you notice, I support reverting to the redirect I originally created this as for that reason. Sebwite (talk) 02:19, 26 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 00:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this user already !voted merge/redirect with a similar rationale above. Jfire (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was not an assassination attempt. Please review the sources. None of the news reports cited claim it was an assassination attempt, and if there were any that did on the day of the event (I can't actually find any online), they were quite simply mistaken. This was just a random arrest of a guy with a gun; it will never be a meaningful part of the historical record. Jfire (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't say it was, said "possible" . Actually reading the main source, it reports that he said he intended to kill the president. Yes, it also says that " the incident was not perceived as a serious threat to the president's security" [56] DGG (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paterson Black Sox[edit]

Paterson Black Sox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G7 - author blanked page; no keep votes cast J.delanoygabsadds 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd baqar[edit]

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

fails notability Waterjuice (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class Editori[edit]

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

Deleted once as copyvio, this version is a directory entry with no formal assertion of notability and no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 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 00:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sopa de agnollini[edit]

Sopa de agnollini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Change to delete - I was thinking "no harm done", but re-Googling in the light of ArchonMagnus's comment, considering the possibility of misspelling, it looks majorly non-notable in its lack of mention even in Brazilian sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:06, 30 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 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More